Thi thử VSTEP – 10 Bài Reading Test 7 Part 2

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

The word noise is derived from the Latin word nausea, meaning “seasickness.” Noise is among the most pervasive pollutants today. Noise pollution can be broadly defined as unwanted or offensive sounds that unreasonably intrude into our daily activities. Noises from traffic, jet engines, barking dogs, garbage trucks, construction equipment, factories, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, televisions, boom boxes, and car radios, to name a few, are among the audible litter that isroutinelybroadcast into the air.

One measure of pollution is the danger it poses to health. Noise negatively affects human health and well-being. Problems related to noise include hearing loss, stress, high blood pressure, sleeplessness, fright, distraction, and lost productivity. Noise pollution also contributes to a general reduction in the quality of life and eliminates opportunities for tranquility.

A number of factors contribute to problems of growing noise levels. One is increasing population, particularly when it leads to increasing urbanization and urban consolidation, because activities associated with urban living generally lead to increased noise levels. Another is the increasing volume of road, rail, and air traffic. Some people would add tothis lista diminishing sense of civility and a growing disrespect for the rights of others.

We experience noise in a number of ways. On some occasions, we can be both the cause and the victim of noise, such as when we are operating noisy appliances or equipment. There are also instances when we experience noise generated by others, just as people experience secondhand smoke. In both instances, noise is equally damaging physically. Secondhand noise is generally more troubling, however, because it is put into the environment by others, without our consent.

The air into which secondhand noise is emitted and on which it travels is “a commons.” [A] It belongs not to an individual person or a group, but to everyone. [B] People, businesses, and organizations, therefore, do not have unlimited rights to broadcast noise as they please, as if the effects of noise were limited only to their private property. [C] Those that disregard the obligation to not interfere with others’ use and enjoyment of the commons by producing noise pollution are, in many ways, acting like a bully in a school yard. [D] Although they may do so unknowingly, they disregard the rights of others and claim for themselves rights that are not theirs.

Noise pollution differs from other forms of pollution in a number of ways. Noise istransient; once the pollution stops, the environment is free of it. This is not the case with air pollution, for example. We can measure the amount of chemicals and other pollutants introduced into the air. Scientists can estimate how much material can be introduced into the air before harm is done. The same is true of water pollution and soil pollution.

Though we can measure individual sounds that may actually damage human hearing, it is difficult to monitor cumulative exposure to noise or to determine just how much noise is too much. The definition of noise pollution itself is highly subjective. To some people, the roar of an engine is satisfying orthrilling; to others it is an annoyance. Loud music may be a pleasure or a torment, depending on the listener and the circumstances.

The actual loudness of a sound is only one component of the negative effect noise pollution has on human beings. Other factors that have to be considered are the time and place, the duration, the source of the sound, and even the mood of the affected person. Most people would not be bothered by the sound of a 21-gun salute on a special occasion. On the other hand, the thump-thump of music coming from the apartment downstairs at 2 A.M., even if barely audible, might be a major source of stress. The sound of a neighbor’s lawn mower may be unobjectionable on a summer afternoon, but if someone is hoping to sleep late on a Saturday morning, the sound of a lawn mower starting up just after sunrise is an irritant.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

The word noise is derived from the Latin word nausea, meaning “seasickness.” Noise is among the most pervasive pollutants today. Noise pollution can be broadly defined as unwanted or offensive sounds that unreasonably intrude into our daily activities. Noises from traffic, jet engines, barking dogs, garbage trucks, construction equipment, factories, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, televisions, boom boxes, and car radios, to name a few, are among the audible litter that isroutinelybroadcast into the air.

One measure of pollution is the danger it poses to health. Noise negatively affects human health and well-being. Problems related to noise include hearing loss, stress, high blood pressure, sleeplessness, fright, distraction, and lost productivity. Noise pollution also contributes to a general reduction in the quality of life and eliminates opportunities for tranquility.

A number of factors contribute to problems of growing noise levels. One is increasing population, particularly when it leads to increasing urbanization and urban consolidation, because activities associated with urban living generally lead to increased noise levels. Another is the increasing volume of road, rail, and air traffic. Some people would add tothis lista diminishing sense of civility and a growing disrespect for the rights of others.

We experience noise in a number of ways. On some occasions, we can be both the cause and the victim of noise, such as when we are operating noisy appliances or equipment. There are also instances when we experience noise generated by others, just as people experience secondhand smoke. In both instances, noise is equally damaging physically. Secondhand noise is generally more troubling, however, because it is put into the environment by others, without our consent.

The air into which secondhand noise is emitted and on which it travels is “a commons.” [A] It belongs not to an individual person or a group, but to everyone. [B] People, businesses, and organizations, therefore, do not have unlimited rights to broadcast noise as they please, as if the effects of noise were limited only to their private property. [C] Those that disregard the obligation to not interfere with others’ use and enjoyment of the commons by producing noise pollution are, in many ways, acting like a bully in a school yard. [D] Although they may do so unknowingly, they disregard the rights of others and claim for themselves rights that are not theirs.

Noise pollution differs from other forms of pollution in a number of ways. Noise istransient; once the pollution stops, the environment is free of it. This is not the case with air pollution, for example. We can measure the amount of chemicals and other pollutants introduced into the air. Scientists can estimate how much material can be introduced into the air before harm is done. The same is true of water pollution and soil pollution.

Though we can measure individual sounds that may actually damage human hearing, it is difficult to monitor cumulative exposure to noise or to determine just how much noise is too much. The definition of noise pollution itself is highly subjective. To some people, the roar of an engine is satisfying orthrilling; to others it is an annoyance. Loud music may be a pleasure or a torment, depending on the listener and the circumstances.

The actual loudness of a sound is only one component of the negative effect noise pollution has on human beings. Other factors that have to be considered are the time and place, the duration, the source of the sound, and even the mood of the affected person. Most people would not be bothered by the sound of a 21-gun salute on a special occasion. On the other hand, the thump-thump of music coming from the apartment downstairs at 2 A.M., even if barely audible, might be a major source of stress. The sound of a neighbor’s lawn mower may be unobjectionable on a summer afternoon, but if someone is hoping to sleep late on a Saturday morning, the sound of a lawn mower starting up just after sunrise is an irritant.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

The word noise is derived from the Latin word nausea, meaning “seasickness.” Noise is among the most pervasive pollutants today. Noise pollution can be broadly defined as unwanted or offensive sounds that unreasonably intrude into our daily activities. Noises from traffic, jet engines, barking dogs, garbage trucks, construction equipment, factories, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, televisions, boom boxes, and car radios, to name a few, are among the audible litter that isroutinelybroadcast into the air.

One measure of pollution is the danger it poses to health. Noise negatively affects human health and well-being. Problems related to noise include hearing loss, stress, high blood pressure, sleeplessness, fright, distraction, and lost productivity. Noise pollution also contributes to a general reduction in the quality of life and eliminates opportunities for tranquility.

A number of factors contribute to problems of growing noise levels. One is increasing population, particularly when it leads to increasing urbanization and urban consolidation, because activities associated with urban living generally lead to increased noise levels. Another is the increasing volume of road, rail, and air traffic. Some people would add tothis lista diminishing sense of civility and a growing disrespect for the rights of others.

We experience noise in a number of ways. On some occasions, we can be both the cause and the victim of noise, such as when we are operating noisy appliances or equipment. There are also instances when we experience noise generated by others, just as people experience secondhand smoke. In both instances, noise is equally damaging physically. Secondhand noise is generally more troubling, however, because it is put into the environment by others, without our consent.

The air into which secondhand noise is emitted and on which it travels is “a commons.” [A] It belongs not to an individual person or a group, but to everyone. [B] People, businesses, and organizations, therefore, do not have unlimited rights to broadcast noise as they please, as if the effects of noise were limited only to their private property. [C] Those that disregard the obligation to not interfere with others’ use and enjoyment of the commons by producing noise pollution are, in many ways, acting like a bully in a school yard. [D] Although they may do so unknowingly, they disregard the rights of others and claim for themselves rights that are not theirs.

Noise pollution differs from other forms of pollution in a number of ways. Noise istransient; once the pollution stops, the environment is free of it. This is not the case with air pollution, for example. We can measure the amount of chemicals and other pollutants introduced into the air. Scientists can estimate how much material can be introduced into the air before harm is done. The same is true of water pollution and soil pollution.

Though we can measure individual sounds that may actually damage human hearing, it is difficult to monitor cumulative exposure to noise or to determine just how much noise is too much. The definition of noise pollution itself is highly subjective. To some people, the roar of an engine is satisfying orthrilling; to others it is an annoyance. Loud music may be a pleasure or a torment, depending on the listener and the circumstances.

The actual loudness of a sound is only one component of the negative effect noise pollution has on human beings. Other factors that have to be considered are the time and place, the duration, the source of the sound, and even the mood of the affected person. Most people would not be bothered by the sound of a 21-gun salute on a special occasion. On the other hand, the thump-thump of music coming from the apartment downstairs at 2 A.M., even if barely audible, might be a major source of stress. The sound of a neighbor’s lawn mower may be unobjectionable on a summer afternoon, but if someone is hoping to sleep late on a Saturday morning, the sound of a lawn mower starting up just after sunrise is an irritant.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

The word noise is derived from the Latin word nausea, meaning “seasickness.” Noise is among the most pervasive pollutants today. Noise pollution can be broadly defined as unwanted or offensive sounds that unreasonably intrude into our daily activities. Noises from traffic, jet engines, barking dogs, garbage trucks, construction equipment, factories, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, televisions, boom boxes, and car radios, to name a few, are among the audible litter that isroutinelybroadcast into the air.

One measure of pollution is the danger it poses to health. Noise negatively affects human health and well-being. Problems related to noise include hearing loss, stress, high blood pressure, sleeplessness, fright, distraction, and lost productivity. Noise pollution also contributes to a general reduction in the quality of life and eliminates opportunities for tranquility.

A number of factors contribute to problems of growing noise levels. One is increasing population, particularly when it leads to increasing urbanization and urban consolidation, because activities associated with urban living generally lead to increased noise levels. Another is the increasing volume of road, rail, and air traffic. Some people would add tothis lista diminishing sense of civility and a growing disrespect for the rights of others.

We experience noise in a number of ways. On some occasions, we can be both the cause and the victim of noise, such as when we are operating noisy appliances or equipment. There are also instances when we experience noise generated by others, just as people experience secondhand smoke. In both instances, noise is equally damaging physically. Secondhand noise is generally more troubling, however, because it is put into the environment by others, without our consent.

The air into which secondhand noise is emitted and on which it travels is “a commons.” [A] It belongs not to an individual person or a group, but to everyone. [B] People, businesses, and organizations, therefore, do not have unlimited rights to broadcast noise as they please, as if the effects of noise were limited only to their private property. [C] Those that disregard the obligation to not interfere with others’ use and enjoyment of the commons by producing noise pollution are, in many ways, acting like a bully in a school yard. [D] Although they may do so unknowingly, they disregard the rights of others and claim for themselves rights that are not theirs.

Noise pollution differs from other forms of pollution in a number of ways. Noise istransient; once the pollution stops, the environment is free of it. This is not the case with air pollution, for example. We can measure the amount of chemicals and other pollutants introduced into the air. Scientists can estimate how much material can be introduced into the air before harm is done. The same is true of water pollution and soil pollution.

Though we can measure individual sounds that may actually damage human hearing, it is difficult to monitor cumulative exposure to noise or to determine just how much noise is too much. The definition of noise pollution itself is highly subjective. To some people, the roar of an engine is satisfying orthrilling; to others it is an annoyance. Loud music may be a pleasure or a torment, depending on the listener and the circumstances.

The actual loudness of a sound is only one component of the negative effect noise pollution has on human beings. Other factors that have to be considered are the time and place, the duration, the source of the sound, and even the mood of the affected person. Most people would not be bothered by the sound of a 21-gun salute on a special occasion. On the other hand, the thump-thump of music coming from the apartment downstairs at 2 A.M., even if barely audible, might be a major source of stress. The sound of a neighbor’s lawn mower may be unobjectionable on a summer afternoon, but if someone is hoping to sleep late on a Saturday morning, the sound of a lawn mower starting up just after sunrise is an irritant.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

The word noise is derived from the Latin word nausea, meaning “seasickness.” Noise is among the most pervasive pollutants today. Noise pollution can be broadly defined as unwanted or offensive sounds that unreasonably intrude into our daily activities. Noises from traffic, jet engines, barking dogs, garbage trucks, construction equipment, factories, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, televisions, boom boxes, and car radios, to name a few, are among the audible litter that isroutinelybroadcast into the air.

One measure of pollution is the danger it poses to health. Noise negatively affects human health and well-being. Problems related to noise include hearing loss, stress, high blood pressure, sleeplessness, fright, distraction, and lost productivity. Noise pollution also contributes to a general reduction in the quality of life and eliminates opportunities for tranquility.

A number of factors contribute to problems of growing noise levels. One is increasing population, particularly when it leads to increasing urbanization and urban consolidation, because activities associated with urban living generally lead to increased noise levels. Another is the increasing volume of road, rail, and air traffic. Some people would add tothis lista diminishing sense of civility and a growing disrespect for the rights of others.

We experience noise in a number of ways. On some occasions, we can be both the cause and the victim of noise, such as when we are operating noisy appliances or equipment. There are also instances when we experience noise generated by others, just as people experience secondhand smoke. In both instances, noise is equally damaging physically. Secondhand noise is generally more troubling, however, because it is put into the environment by others, without our consent.

The air into which secondhand noise is emitted and on which it travels is “a commons.” [A] It belongs not to an individual person or a group, but to everyone. [B] People, businesses, and organizations, therefore, do not have unlimited rights to broadcast noise as they please, as if the effects of noise were limited only to their private property. [C] Those that disregard the obligation to not interfere with others’ use and enjoyment of the commons by producing noise pollution are, in many ways, acting like a bully in a school yard. [D] Although they may do so unknowingly, they disregard the rights of others and claim for themselves rights that are not theirs.

Noise pollution differs from other forms of pollution in a number of ways. Noise istransient; once the pollution stops, the environment is free of it. This is not the case with air pollution, for example. We can measure the amount of chemicals and other pollutants introduced into the air. Scientists can estimate how much material can be introduced into the air before harm is done. The same is true of water pollution and soil pollution.

Though we can measure individual sounds that may actually damage human hearing, it is difficult to monitor cumulative exposure to noise or to determine just how much noise is too much. The definition of noise pollution itself is highly subjective. To some people, the roar of an engine is satisfying orthrilling; to others it is an annoyance. Loud music may be a pleasure or a torment, depending on the listener and the circumstances.

The actual loudness of a sound is only one component of the negative effect noise pollution has on human beings. Other factors that have to be considered are the time and place, the duration, the source of the sound, and even the mood of the affected person. Most people would not be bothered by the sound of a 21-gun salute on a special occasion. On the other hand, the thump-thump of music coming from the apartment downstairs at 2 A.M., even if barely audible, might be a major source of stress. The sound of a neighbor’s lawn mower may be unobjectionable on a summer afternoon, but if someone is hoping to sleep late on a Saturday morning, the sound of a lawn mower starting up just after sunrise is an irritant.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

The word noise is derived from the Latin word nausea, meaning “seasickness.” Noise is among the most pervasive pollutants today. Noise pollution can be broadly defined as unwanted or offensive sounds that unreasonably intrude into our daily activities. Noises from traffic, jet engines, barking dogs, garbage trucks, construction equipment, factories, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, televisions, boom boxes, and car radios, to name a few, are among the audible litter that isroutinelybroadcast into the air.

One measure of pollution is the danger it poses to health. Noise negatively affects human health and well-being. Problems related to noise include hearing loss, stress, high blood pressure, sleeplessness, fright, distraction, and lost productivity. Noise pollution also contributes to a general reduction in the quality of life and eliminates opportunities for tranquility.

A number of factors contribute to problems of growing noise levels. One is increasing population, particularly when it leads to increasing urbanization and urban consolidation, because activities associated with urban living generally lead to increased noise levels. Another is the increasing volume of road, rail, and air traffic. Some people would add tothis lista diminishing sense of civility and a growing disrespect for the rights of others.

We experience noise in a number of ways. On some occasions, we can be both the cause and the victim of noise, such as when we are operating noisy appliances or equipment. There are also instances when we experience noise generated by others, just as people experience secondhand smoke. In both instances, noise is equally damaging physically. Secondhand noise is generally more troubling, however, because it is put into the environment by others, without our consent.

The air into which secondhand noise is emitted and on which it travels is “a commons.” [A] It belongs not to an individual person or a group, but to everyone. [B] People, businesses, and organizations, therefore, do not have unlimited rights to broadcast noise as they please, as if the effects of noise were limited only to their private property. [C] Those that disregard the obligation to not interfere with others’ use and enjoyment of the commons by producing noise pollution are, in many ways, acting like a bully in a school yard. [D] Although they may do so unknowingly, they disregard the rights of others and claim for themselves rights that are not theirs.

Noise pollution differs from other forms of pollution in a number of ways. Noise istransient; once the pollution stops, the environment is free of it. This is not the case with air pollution, for example. We can measure the amount of chemicals and other pollutants introduced into the air. Scientists can estimate how much material can be introduced into the air before harm is done. The same is true of water pollution and soil pollution.

Though we can measure individual sounds that may actually damage human hearing, it is difficult to monitor cumulative exposure to noise or to determine just how much noise is too much. The definition of noise pollution itself is highly subjective. To some people, the roar of an engine is satisfying orthrilling; to others it is an annoyance. Loud music may be a pleasure or a torment, depending on the listener and the circumstances.

The actual loudness of a sound is only one component of the negative effect noise pollution has on human beings. Other factors that have to be considered are the time and place, the duration, the source of the sound, and even the mood of the affected person. Most people would not be bothered by the sound of a 21-gun salute on a special occasion. On the other hand, the thump-thump of music coming from the apartment downstairs at 2 A.M., even if barely audible, might be a major source of stress. The sound of a neighbor’s lawn mower may be unobjectionable on a summer afternoon, but if someone is hoping to sleep late on a Saturday morning, the sound of a lawn mower starting up just after sunrise is an irritant.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

The word noise is derived from the Latin word nausea, meaning “seasickness.” Noise is among the most pervasive pollutants today. Noise pollution can be broadly defined as unwanted or offensive sounds that unreasonably intrude into our daily activities. Noises from traffic, jet engines, barking dogs, garbage trucks, construction equipment, factories, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, televisions, boom boxes, and car radios, to name a few, are among the audible litter that isroutinelybroadcast into the air.

One measure of pollution is the danger it poses to health. Noise negatively affects human health and well-being. Problems related to noise include hearing loss, stress, high blood pressure, sleeplessness, fright, distraction, and lost productivity. Noise pollution also contributes to a general reduction in the quality of life and eliminates opportunities for tranquility.

A number of factors contribute to problems of growing noise levels. One is increasing population, particularly when it leads to increasing urbanization and urban consolidation, because activities associated with urban living generally lead to increased noise levels. Another is the increasing volume of road, rail, and air traffic. Some people would add tothis lista diminishing sense of civility and a growing disrespect for the rights of others.

We experience noise in a number of ways. On some occasions, we can be both the cause and the victim of noise, such as when we are operating noisy appliances or equipment. There are also instances when we experience noise generated by others, just as people experience secondhand smoke. In both instances, noise is equally damaging physically. Secondhand noise is generally more troubling, however, because it is put into the environment by others, without our consent.

The air into which secondhand noise is emitted and on which it travels is “a commons.” [A] It belongs not to an individual person or a group, but to everyone. [B] People, businesses, and organizations, therefore, do not have unlimited rights to broadcast noise as they please, as if the effects of noise were limited only to their private property. [C] Those that disregard the obligation to not interfere with others’ use and enjoyment of the commons by producing noise pollution are, in many ways, acting like a bully in a school yard. [D] Although they may do so unknowingly, they disregard the rights of others and claim for themselves rights that are not theirs.

Noise pollution differs from other forms of pollution in a number of ways. Noise istransient; once the pollution stops, the environment is free of it. This is not the case with air pollution, for example. We can measure the amount of chemicals and other pollutants introduced into the air. Scientists can estimate how much material can be introduced into the air before harm is done. The same is true of water pollution and soil pollution.

Though we can measure individual sounds that may actually damage human hearing, it is difficult to monitor cumulative exposure to noise or to determine just how much noise is too much. The definition of noise pollution itself is highly subjective. To some people, the roar of an engine is satisfying orthrilling; to others it is an annoyance. Loud music may be a pleasure or a torment, depending on the listener and the circumstances.

The actual loudness of a sound is only one component of the negative effect noise pollution has on human beings. Other factors that have to be considered are the time and place, the duration, the source of the sound, and even the mood of the affected person. Most people would not be bothered by the sound of a 21-gun salute on a special occasion. On the other hand, the thump-thump of music coming from the apartment downstairs at 2 A.M., even if barely audible, might be a major source of stress. The sound of a neighbor’s lawn mower may be unobjectionable on a summer afternoon, but if someone is hoping to sleep late on a Saturday morning, the sound of a lawn mower starting up just after sunrise is an irritant.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

The word noise is derived from the Latin word nausea, meaning “seasickness.” Noise is among the most pervasive pollutants today. Noise pollution can be broadly defined as unwanted or offensive sounds that unreasonably intrude into our daily activities. Noises from traffic, jet engines, barking dogs, garbage trucks, construction equipment, factories, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, televisions, boom boxes, and car radios, to name a few, are among the audible litter that isroutinelybroadcast into the air.

One measure of pollution is the danger it poses to health. Noise negatively affects human health and well-being. Problems related to noise include hearing loss, stress, high blood pressure, sleeplessness, fright, distraction, and lost productivity. Noise pollution also contributes to a general reduction in the quality of life and eliminates opportunities for tranquility.

A number of factors contribute to problems of growing noise levels. One is increasing population, particularly when it leads to increasing urbanization and urban consolidation, because activities associated with urban living generally lead to increased noise levels. Another is the increasing volume of road, rail, and air traffic. Some people would add tothis lista diminishing sense of civility and a growing disrespect for the rights of others.

We experience noise in a number of ways. On some occasions, we can be both the cause and the victim of noise, such as when we are operating noisy appliances or equipment. There are also instances when we experience noise generated by others, just as people experience secondhand smoke. In both instances, noise is equally damaging physically. Secondhand noise is generally more troubling, however, because it is put into the environment by others, without our consent.

The air into which secondhand noise is emitted and on which it travels is “a commons.” [A] It belongs not to an individual person or a group, but to everyone. [B] People, businesses, and organizations, therefore, do not have unlimited rights to broadcast noise as they please, as if the effects of noise were limited only to their private property. [C] Those that disregard the obligation to not interfere with others’ use and enjoyment of the commons by producing noise pollution are, in many ways, acting like a bully in a school yard. [D] Although they may do so unknowingly, they disregard the rights of others and claim for themselves rights that are not theirs.

Noise pollution differs from other forms of pollution in a number of ways. Noise istransient; once the pollution stops, the environment is free of it. This is not the case with air pollution, for example. We can measure the amount of chemicals and other pollutants introduced into the air. Scientists can estimate how much material can be introduced into the air before harm is done. The same is true of water pollution and soil pollution.

Though we can measure individual sounds that may actually damage human hearing, it is difficult to monitor cumulative exposure to noise or to determine just how much noise is too much. The definition of noise pollution itself is highly subjective. To some people, the roar of an engine is satisfying orthrilling; to others it is an annoyance. Loud music may be a pleasure or a torment, depending on the listener and the circumstances.

The actual loudness of a sound is only one component of the negative effect noise pollution has on human beings. Other factors that have to be considered are the time and place, the duration, the source of the sound, and even the mood of the affected person. Most people would not be bothered by the sound of a 21-gun salute on a special occasion. On the other hand, the thump-thump of music coming from the apartment downstairs at 2 A.M., even if barely audible, might be a major source of stress. The sound of a neighbor’s lawn mower may be unobjectionable on a summer afternoon, but if someone is hoping to sleep late on a Saturday morning, the sound of a lawn mower starting up just after sunrise is an irritant.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

The word noise is derived from the Latin word nausea, meaning “seasickness.” Noise is among the most pervasive pollutants today. Noise pollution can be broadly defined as unwanted or offensive sounds that unreasonably intrude into our daily activities. Noises from traffic, jet engines, barking dogs, garbage trucks, construction equipment, factories, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, televisions, boom boxes, and car radios, to name a few, are among the audible litter that isroutinelybroadcast into the air.

One measure of pollution is the danger it poses to health. Noise negatively affects human health and well-being. Problems related to noise include hearing loss, stress, high blood pressure, sleeplessness, fright, distraction, and lost productivity. Noise pollution also contributes to a general reduction in the quality of life and eliminates opportunities for tranquility.

A number of factors contribute to problems of growing noise levels. One is increasing population, particularly when it leads to increasing urbanization and urban consolidation, because activities associated with urban living generally lead to increased noise levels. Another is the increasing volume of road, rail, and air traffic. Some people would add tothis lista diminishing sense of civility and a growing disrespect for the rights of others.

We experience noise in a number of ways. On some occasions, we can be both the cause and the victim of noise, such as when we are operating noisy appliances or equipment. There are also instances when we experience noise generated by others, just as people experience secondhand smoke. In both instances, noise is equally damaging physically. Secondhand noise is generally more troubling, however, because it is put into the environment by others, without our consent.

The air into which secondhand noise is emitted and on which it travels is “a commons.” [A] It belongs not to an individual person or a group, but to everyone. [B] People, businesses, and organizations, therefore, do not have unlimited rights to broadcast noise as they please, as if the effects of noise were limited only to their private property. [C] Those that disregard the obligation to not interfere with others’ use and enjoyment of the commons by producing noise pollution are, in many ways, acting like a bully in a school yard. [D] Although they may do so unknowingly, they disregard the rights of others and claim for themselves rights that are not theirs.

Noise pollution differs from other forms of pollution in a number of ways. Noise istransient; once the pollution stops, the environment is free of it. This is not the case with air pollution, for example. We can measure the amount of chemicals and other pollutants introduced into the air. Scientists can estimate how much material can be introduced into the air before harm is done. The same is true of water pollution and soil pollution.

Though we can measure individual sounds that may actually damage human hearing, it is difficult to monitor cumulative exposure to noise or to determine just how much noise is too much. The definition of noise pollution itself is highly subjective. To some people, the roar of an engine is satisfying orthrilling; to others it is an annoyance. Loud music may be a pleasure or a torment, depending on the listener and the circumstances.

The actual loudness of a sound is only one component of the negative effect noise pollution has on human beings. Other factors that have to be considered are the time and place, the duration, the source of the sound, and even the mood of the affected person. Most people would not be bothered by the sound of a 21-gun salute on a special occasion. On the other hand, the thump-thump of music coming from the apartment downstairs at 2 A.M., even if barely audible, might be a major source of stress. The sound of a neighbor’s lawn mower may be unobjectionable on a summer afternoon, but if someone is hoping to sleep late on a Saturday morning, the sound of a lawn mower starting up just after sunrise is an irritant.

PASSAGE 3
Questions 21-30

The word noise is derived from the Latin word nausea, meaning “seasickness.” Noise is among the most pervasive pollutants today. Noise pollution can be broadly defined as unwanted or offensive sounds that unreasonably intrude into our daily activities. Noises from traffic, jet engines, barking dogs, garbage trucks, construction equipment, factories, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, televisions, boom boxes, and car radios, to name a few, are among the audible litter that isroutinelybroadcast into the air.

One measure of pollution is the danger it poses to health. Noise negatively affects human health and well-being. Problems related to noise include hearing loss, stress, high blood pressure, sleeplessness, fright, distraction, and lost productivity. Noise pollution also contributes to a general reduction in the quality of life and eliminates opportunities for tranquility.

A number of factors contribute to problems of growing noise levels. One is increasing population, particularly when it leads to increasing urbanization and urban consolidation, because activities associated with urban living generally lead to increased noise levels. Another is the increasing volume of road, rail, and air traffic. Some people would add tothis lista diminishing sense of civility and a growing disrespect for the rights of others.

We experience noise in a number of ways. On some occasions, we can be both the cause and the victim of noise, such as when we are operating noisy appliances or equipment. There are also instances when we experience noise generated by others, just as people experience secondhand smoke. In both instances, noise is equally damaging physically. Secondhand noise is generally more troubling, however, because it is put into the environment by others, without our consent.

The air into which secondhand noise is emitted and on which it travels is “a commons.” [A] It belongs not to an individual person or a group, but to everyone. [B] People, businesses, and organizations, therefore, do not have unlimited rights to broadcast noise as they please, as if the effects of noise were limited only to their private property. [C] Those that disregard the obligation to not interfere with others’ use and enjoyment of the commons by producing noise pollution are, in many ways, acting like a bully in a school yard. [D] Although they may do so unknowingly, they disregard the rights of others and claim for themselves rights that are not theirs.

Noise pollution differs from other forms of pollution in a number of ways. Noise istransient; once the pollution stops, the environment is free of it. This is not the case with air pollution, for example. We can measure the amount of chemicals and other pollutants introduced into the air. Scientists can estimate how much material can be introduced into the air before harm is done. The same is true of water pollution and soil pollution.

Though we can measure individual sounds that may actually damage human hearing, it is difficult to monitor cumulative exposure to noise or to determine just how much noise is too much. The definition of noise pollution itself is highly subjective. To some people, the roar of an engine is satisfying orthrilling; to others it is an annoyance. Loud music may be a pleasure or a torment, depending on the listener and the circumstances.

The actual loudness of a sound is only one component of the negative effect noise pollution has on human beings. Other factors that have to be considered are the time and place, the duration, the source of the sound, and even the mood of the affected person. Most people would not be bothered by the sound of a 21-gun salute on a special occasion. On the other hand, the thump-thump of music coming from the apartment downstairs at 2 A.M., even if barely audible, might be a major source of stress. The sound of a neighbor’s lawn mower may be unobjectionable on a summer afternoon, but if someone is hoping to sleep late on a Saturday morning, the sound of a lawn mower starting up just after sunrise is an irritant.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In the mid-1800s, scientists discovered the complete skeleton of a dinosaur calledArchaeopteryx lithographica. The creature was thought to have lived approximately 150 million years ago and, curiously, had features that resembled not only dinosaurs, but modern birds as well. For instance, while it had sharp teeth and a bony tail like the dinosaurs of its time, it also had wings and feathers like modern birds. Despite these similarities to birds, the generalconsensuswithin the scientific community was that the closest living relatives of dinosaurs were reptiles, like lizards and alligators. It wasn’t until 1969, when paleontologists discovered the fossils of a dinosaur calledDeinonychus antirrhopus, that the debate about whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs was reopened.

The main problem with the theory linking dinosaurs to modern birds – which was also the main support for arguments that reptiles were, in fact, the closest living ancestors of dinosaurs – was the belief that dinosaurs did not have furculae, or wishbones. The main function of this fork-shaped bone, which is located at the base of the neck on birds, is to reinforce the skeleton against the many stresses of flight. However, fossil evidence found in recent years has revealed that many dinosaurs did indeed have furculae. For example, the dinosaurs in theDromaeosauridaefamily, a group of bird-like dinosaurs, are all believed to have had furculae. This discovery contradicts the theory that the bones are unique to birds.

[A] In addition to the observation of furculae in dinosaur fossils, paleontologists have identified a number of other structural similarities between birds and dinosaurs. [B] For example, comparisons between the skeletons of birds and those of dinosaurs likeVelociraptor mongoliensisandDeinonychusreveal that birds and dinosaurs share many unique skeletal features. [C] For instance,Velociraptorfossils show that the creature’s front limbs, the construction of which would have presumably allowed for great flexibility are similar tothoseof modern birds. [D] On the other hand, no such likenesses exist between dinosaurs and early reptiles.

Anothercompellingpiece of evidence that paleontologists now generally agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs is the presence of feathers in both organisms. Fossils ofArchaeopteryxfeature imprints of feathers that closely resemble those found on modern birds. Since the discovery ofArchaeopteryx, paleontologists have discovered fossils demonstrating that a number of other dinosaurs that were likely related toArchaeopteryxalso had feathers. Furthermore, even the fossils of dinosaurs that were not related toArchaeopteryx, such asTyrannosaurus rex, have been found to have long, feather-like structures that are commonly referred to as protofeathers which help to insulate dinosaurs from cold temperatures, not to assist with flight, which accounts for why many flightless dinosaurs may have had them.

Paleontologists have also found evidence that the lungs of dinosaurs were shaped similarly to birds’ lungs. Birds have extra air sacs in front of and behind their lungs that allow them to keep their lungs inflated constantly and some dinosaurs also had lungs with extra chambers. However, most animals, including primates, lizards, and frogs, have lungs with two compartments. The similarities in skeletal structures, the existence of feathers and extra lung chambers in both groups reveal that birds probably evolved from dinosaurs and are thus their closest living relatives.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In the mid-1800s, scientists discovered the complete skeleton of a dinosaur calledArchaeopteryx lithographica. The creature was thought to have lived approximately 150 million years ago and, curiously, had features that resembled not only dinosaurs, but modern birds as well. For instance, while it had sharp teeth and a bony tail like the dinosaurs of its time, it also had wings and feathers like modern birds. Despite these similarities to birds, the generalconsensuswithin the scientific community was that the closest living relatives of dinosaurs were reptiles, like lizards and alligators. It wasn’t until 1969, when paleontologists discovered the fossils of a dinosaur calledDeinonychus antirrhopus, that the debate about whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs was reopened.

The main problem with the theory linking dinosaurs to modern birds – which was also the main support for arguments that reptiles were, in fact, the closest living ancestors of dinosaurs – was the belief that dinosaurs did not have furculae, or wishbones. The main function of this fork-shaped bone, which is located at the base of the neck on birds, is to reinforce the skeleton against the many stresses of flight. However, fossil evidence found in recent years has revealed that many dinosaurs did indeed have furculae. For example, the dinosaurs in theDromaeosauridaefamily, a group of bird-like dinosaurs, are all believed to have had furculae. This discovery contradicts the theory that the bones are unique to birds.

[A] In addition to the observation of furculae in dinosaur fossils, paleontologists have identified a number of other structural similarities between birds and dinosaurs. [B] For example, comparisons between the skeletons of birds and those of dinosaurs likeVelociraptor mongoliensisandDeinonychusreveal that birds and dinosaurs share many unique skeletal features. [C] For instance,Velociraptorfossils show that the creature’s front limbs, the construction of which would have presumably allowed for great flexibility are similar tothoseof modern birds. [D] On the other hand, no such likenesses exist between dinosaurs and early reptiles.

Anothercompellingpiece of evidence that paleontologists now generally agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs is the presence of feathers in both organisms. Fossils ofArchaeopteryxfeature imprints of feathers that closely resemble those found on modern birds. Since the discovery ofArchaeopteryx, paleontologists have discovered fossils demonstrating that a number of other dinosaurs that were likely related toArchaeopteryxalso had feathers. Furthermore, even the fossils of dinosaurs that were not related toArchaeopteryx, such asTyrannosaurus rex, have been found to have long, feather-like structures that are commonly referred to as protofeathers which help to insulate dinosaurs from cold temperatures, not to assist with flight, which accounts for why many flightless dinosaurs may have had them.

Paleontologists have also found evidence that the lungs of dinosaurs were shaped similarly to birds’ lungs. Birds have extra air sacs in front of and behind their lungs that allow them to keep their lungs inflated constantly and some dinosaurs also had lungs with extra chambers. However, most animals, including primates, lizards, and frogs, have lungs with two compartments. The similarities in skeletal structures, the existence of feathers and extra lung chambers in both groups reveal that birds probably evolved from dinosaurs and are thus their closest living relatives.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In the mid-1800s, scientists discovered the complete skeleton of a dinosaur calledArchaeopteryx lithographica. The creature was thought to have lived approximately 150 million years ago and, curiously, had features that resembled not only dinosaurs, but modern birds as well. For instance, while it had sharp teeth and a bony tail like the dinosaurs of its time, it also had wings and feathers like modern birds. Despite these similarities to birds, the generalconsensuswithin the scientific community was that the closest living relatives of dinosaurs were reptiles, like lizards and alligators. It wasn’t until 1969, when paleontologists discovered the fossils of a dinosaur calledDeinonychus antirrhopus, that the debate about whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs was reopened.

The main problem with the theory linking dinosaurs to modern birds – which was also the main support for arguments that reptiles were, in fact, the closest living ancestors of dinosaurs – was the belief that dinosaurs did not have furculae, or wishbones. The main function of this fork-shaped bone, which is located at the base of the neck on birds, is to reinforce the skeleton against the many stresses of flight. However, fossil evidence found in recent years has revealed that many dinosaurs did indeed have furculae. For example, the dinosaurs in theDromaeosauridaefamily, a group of bird-like dinosaurs, are all believed to have had furculae. This discovery contradicts the theory that the bones are unique to birds.

[A] In addition to the observation of furculae in dinosaur fossils, paleontologists have identified a number of other structural similarities between birds and dinosaurs. [B] For example, comparisons between the skeletons of birds and those of dinosaurs likeVelociraptor mongoliensisandDeinonychusreveal that birds and dinosaurs share many unique skeletal features. [C] For instance,Velociraptorfossils show that the creature’s front limbs, the construction of which would have presumably allowed for great flexibility are similar tothoseof modern birds. [D] On the other hand, no such likenesses exist between dinosaurs and early reptiles.

Anothercompellingpiece of evidence that paleontologists now generally agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs is the presence of feathers in both organisms. Fossils ofArchaeopteryxfeature imprints of feathers that closely resemble those found on modern birds. Since the discovery ofArchaeopteryx, paleontologists have discovered fossils demonstrating that a number of other dinosaurs that were likely related toArchaeopteryxalso had feathers. Furthermore, even the fossils of dinosaurs that were not related toArchaeopteryx, such asTyrannosaurus rex, have been found to have long, feather-like structures that are commonly referred to as protofeathers which help to insulate dinosaurs from cold temperatures, not to assist with flight, which accounts for why many flightless dinosaurs may have had them.

Paleontologists have also found evidence that the lungs of dinosaurs were shaped similarly to birds’ lungs. Birds have extra air sacs in front of and behind their lungs that allow them to keep their lungs inflated constantly and some dinosaurs also had lungs with extra chambers. However, most animals, including primates, lizards, and frogs, have lungs with two compartments. The similarities in skeletal structures, the existence of feathers and extra lung chambers in both groups reveal that birds probably evolved from dinosaurs and are thus their closest living relatives.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In the mid-1800s, scientists discovered the complete skeleton of a dinosaur calledArchaeopteryx lithographica. The creature was thought to have lived approximately 150 million years ago and, curiously, had features that resembled not only dinosaurs, but modern birds as well. For instance, while it had sharp teeth and a bony tail like the dinosaurs of its time, it also had wings and feathers like modern birds. Despite these similarities to birds, the generalconsensuswithin the scientific community was that the closest living relatives of dinosaurs were reptiles, like lizards and alligators. It wasn’t until 1969, when paleontologists discovered the fossils of a dinosaur calledDeinonychus antirrhopus, that the debate about whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs was reopened.

The main problem with the theory linking dinosaurs to modern birds – which was also the main support for arguments that reptiles were, in fact, the closest living ancestors of dinosaurs – was the belief that dinosaurs did not have furculae, or wishbones. The main function of this fork-shaped bone, which is located at the base of the neck on birds, is to reinforce the skeleton against the many stresses of flight. However, fossil evidence found in recent years has revealed that many dinosaurs did indeed have furculae. For example, the dinosaurs in theDromaeosauridaefamily, a group of bird-like dinosaurs, are all believed to have had furculae. This discovery contradicts the theory that the bones are unique to birds.

[A] In addition to the observation of furculae in dinosaur fossils, paleontologists have identified a number of other structural similarities between birds and dinosaurs. [B] For example, comparisons between the skeletons of birds and those of dinosaurs likeVelociraptor mongoliensisandDeinonychusreveal that birds and dinosaurs share many unique skeletal features. [C] For instance,Velociraptorfossils show that the creature’s front limbs, the construction of which would have presumably allowed for great flexibility are similar tothoseof modern birds. [D] On the other hand, no such likenesses exist between dinosaurs and early reptiles.

Anothercompellingpiece of evidence that paleontologists now generally agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs is the presence of feathers in both organisms. Fossils ofArchaeopteryxfeature imprints of feathers that closely resemble those found on modern birds. Since the discovery ofArchaeopteryx, paleontologists have discovered fossils demonstrating that a number of other dinosaurs that were likely related toArchaeopteryxalso had feathers. Furthermore, even the fossils of dinosaurs that were not related toArchaeopteryx, such asTyrannosaurus rex, have been found to have long, feather-like structures that are commonly referred to as protofeathers which help to insulate dinosaurs from cold temperatures, not to assist with flight, which accounts for why many flightless dinosaurs may have had them.

Paleontologists have also found evidence that the lungs of dinosaurs were shaped similarly to birds’ lungs. Birds have extra air sacs in front of and behind their lungs that allow them to keep their lungs inflated constantly and some dinosaurs also had lungs with extra chambers. However, most animals, including primates, lizards, and frogs, have lungs with two compartments. The similarities in skeletal structures, the existence of feathers and extra lung chambers in both groups reveal that birds probably evolved from dinosaurs and are thus their closest living relatives.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In the mid-1800s, scientists discovered the complete skeleton of a dinosaur calledArchaeopteryx lithographica. The creature was thought to have lived approximately 150 million years ago and, curiously, had features that resembled not only dinosaurs, but modern birds as well. For instance, while it had sharp teeth and a bony tail like the dinosaurs of its time, it also had wings and feathers like modern birds. Despite these similarities to birds, the generalconsensuswithin the scientific community was that the closest living relatives of dinosaurs were reptiles, like lizards and alligators. It wasn’t until 1969, when paleontologists discovered the fossils of a dinosaur calledDeinonychus antirrhopus, that the debate about whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs was reopened.

The main problem with the theory linking dinosaurs to modern birds – which was also the main support for arguments that reptiles were, in fact, the closest living ancestors of dinosaurs – was the belief that dinosaurs did not have furculae, or wishbones. The main function of this fork-shaped bone, which is located at the base of the neck on birds, is to reinforce the skeleton against the many stresses of flight. However, fossil evidence found in recent years has revealed that many dinosaurs did indeed have furculae. For example, the dinosaurs in theDromaeosauridaefamily, a group of bird-like dinosaurs, are all believed to have had furculae. This discovery contradicts the theory that the bones are unique to birds.

[A] In addition to the observation of furculae in dinosaur fossils, paleontologists have identified a number of other structural similarities between birds and dinosaurs. [B] For example, comparisons between the skeletons of birds and those of dinosaurs likeVelociraptor mongoliensisandDeinonychusreveal that birds and dinosaurs share many unique skeletal features. [C] For instance,Velociraptorfossils show that the creature’s front limbs, the construction of which would have presumably allowed for great flexibility are similar tothoseof modern birds. [D] On the other hand, no such likenesses exist between dinosaurs and early reptiles.

Anothercompellingpiece of evidence that paleontologists now generally agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs is the presence of feathers in both organisms. Fossils ofArchaeopteryxfeature imprints of feathers that closely resemble those found on modern birds. Since the discovery ofArchaeopteryx, paleontologists have discovered fossils demonstrating that a number of other dinosaurs that were likely related toArchaeopteryxalso had feathers. Furthermore, even the fossils of dinosaurs that were not related toArchaeopteryx, such asTyrannosaurus rex, have been found to have long, feather-like structures that are commonly referred to as protofeathers which help to insulate dinosaurs from cold temperatures, not to assist with flight, which accounts for why many flightless dinosaurs may have had them.

Paleontologists have also found evidence that the lungs of dinosaurs were shaped similarly to birds’ lungs. Birds have extra air sacs in front of and behind their lungs that allow them to keep their lungs inflated constantly and some dinosaurs also had lungs with extra chambers. However, most animals, including primates, lizards, and frogs, have lungs with two compartments. The similarities in skeletal structures, the existence of feathers and extra lung chambers in both groups reveal that birds probably evolved from dinosaurs and are thus their closest living relatives.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In the mid-1800s, scientists discovered the complete skeleton of a dinosaur calledArchaeopteryx lithographica. The creature was thought to have lived approximately 150 million years ago and, curiously, had features that resembled not only dinosaurs, but modern birds as well. For instance, while it had sharp teeth and a bony tail like the dinosaurs of its time, it also had wings and feathers like modern birds. Despite these similarities to birds, the generalconsensuswithin the scientific community was that the closest living relatives of dinosaurs were reptiles, like lizards and alligators. It wasn’t until 1969, when paleontologists discovered the fossils of a dinosaur calledDeinonychus antirrhopus, that the debate about whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs was reopened.

The main problem with the theory linking dinosaurs to modern birds – which was also the main support for arguments that reptiles were, in fact, the closest living ancestors of dinosaurs – was the belief that dinosaurs did not have furculae, or wishbones. The main function of this fork-shaped bone, which is located at the base of the neck on birds, is to reinforce the skeleton against the many stresses of flight. However, fossil evidence found in recent years has revealed that many dinosaurs did indeed have furculae. For example, the dinosaurs in theDromaeosauridaefamily, a group of bird-like dinosaurs, are all believed to have had furculae. This discovery contradicts the theory that the bones are unique to birds.

[A] In addition to the observation of furculae in dinosaur fossils, paleontologists have identified a number of other structural similarities between birds and dinosaurs. [B] For example, comparisons between the skeletons of birds and those of dinosaurs likeVelociraptor mongoliensisandDeinonychusreveal that birds and dinosaurs share many unique skeletal features. [C] For instance,Velociraptorfossils show that the creature’s front limbs, the construction of which would have presumably allowed for great flexibility are similar tothoseof modern birds. [D] On the other hand, no such likenesses exist between dinosaurs and early reptiles.

Anothercompellingpiece of evidence that paleontologists now generally agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs is the presence of feathers in both organisms. Fossils ofArchaeopteryxfeature imprints of feathers that closely resemble those found on modern birds. Since the discovery ofArchaeopteryx, paleontologists have discovered fossils demonstrating that a number of other dinosaurs that were likely related toArchaeopteryxalso had feathers. Furthermore, even the fossils of dinosaurs that were not related toArchaeopteryx, such asTyrannosaurus rex, have been found to have long, feather-like structures that are commonly referred to as protofeathers which help to insulate dinosaurs from cold temperatures, not to assist with flight, which accounts for why many flightless dinosaurs may have had them.

Paleontologists have also found evidence that the lungs of dinosaurs were shaped similarly to birds’ lungs. Birds have extra air sacs in front of and behind their lungs that allow them to keep their lungs inflated constantly and some dinosaurs also had lungs with extra chambers. However, most animals, including primates, lizards, and frogs, have lungs with two compartments. The similarities in skeletal structures, the existence of feathers and extra lung chambers in both groups reveal that birds probably evolved from dinosaurs and are thus their closest living relatives.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In the mid-1800s, scientists discovered the complete skeleton of a dinosaur calledArchaeopteryx lithographica. The creature was thought to have lived approximately 150 million years ago and, curiously, had features that resembled not only dinosaurs, but modern birds as well. For instance, while it had sharp teeth and a bony tail like the dinosaurs of its time, it also had wings and feathers like modern birds. Despite these similarities to birds, the generalconsensuswithin the scientific community was that the closest living relatives of dinosaurs were reptiles, like lizards and alligators. It wasn’t until 1969, when paleontologists discovered the fossils of a dinosaur calledDeinonychus antirrhopus, that the debate about whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs was reopened.

The main problem with the theory linking dinosaurs to modern birds – which was also the main support for arguments that reptiles were, in fact, the closest living ancestors of dinosaurs – was the belief that dinosaurs did not have furculae, or wishbones. The main function of this fork-shaped bone, which is located at the base of the neck on birds, is to reinforce the skeleton against the many stresses of flight. However, fossil evidence found in recent years has revealed that many dinosaurs did indeed have furculae. For example, the dinosaurs in theDromaeosauridaefamily, a group of bird-like dinosaurs, are all believed to have had furculae. This discovery contradicts the theory that the bones are unique to birds.

[A] In addition to the observation of furculae in dinosaur fossils, paleontologists have identified a number of other structural similarities between birds and dinosaurs. [B] For example, comparisons between the skeletons of birds and those of dinosaurs likeVelociraptor mongoliensisandDeinonychusreveal that birds and dinosaurs share many unique skeletal features. [C] For instance,Velociraptorfossils show that the creature’s front limbs, the construction of which would have presumably allowed for great flexibility are similar tothoseof modern birds. [D] On the other hand, no such likenesses exist between dinosaurs and early reptiles.

Anothercompellingpiece of evidence that paleontologists now generally agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs is the presence of feathers in both organisms. Fossils ofArchaeopteryxfeature imprints of feathers that closely resemble those found on modern birds. Since the discovery ofArchaeopteryx, paleontologists have discovered fossils demonstrating that a number of other dinosaurs that were likely related toArchaeopteryxalso had feathers. Furthermore, even the fossils of dinosaurs that were not related toArchaeopteryx, such asTyrannosaurus rex, have been found to have long, feather-like structures that are commonly referred to as protofeathers which help to insulate dinosaurs from cold temperatures, not to assist with flight, which accounts for why many flightless dinosaurs may have had them.

Paleontologists have also found evidence that the lungs of dinosaurs were shaped similarly to birds’ lungs. Birds have extra air sacs in front of and behind their lungs that allow them to keep their lungs inflated constantly and some dinosaurs also had lungs with extra chambers. However, most animals, including primates, lizards, and frogs, have lungs with two compartments. The similarities in skeletal structures, the existence of feathers and extra lung chambers in both groups reveal that birds probably evolved from dinosaurs and are thus their closest living relatives.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In the mid-1800s, scientists discovered the complete skeleton of a dinosaur calledArchaeopteryx lithographica. The creature was thought to have lived approximately 150 million years ago and, curiously, had features that resembled not only dinosaurs, but modern birds as well. For instance, while it had sharp teeth and a bony tail like the dinosaurs of its time, it also had wings and feathers like modern birds. Despite these similarities to birds, the generalconsensuswithin the scientific community was that the closest living relatives of dinosaurs were reptiles, like lizards and alligators. It wasn’t until 1969, when paleontologists discovered the fossils of a dinosaur calledDeinonychus antirrhopus, that the debate about whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs was reopened.

The main problem with the theory linking dinosaurs to modern birds – which was also the main support for arguments that reptiles were, in fact, the closest living ancestors of dinosaurs – was the belief that dinosaurs did not have furculae, or wishbones. The main function of this fork-shaped bone, which is located at the base of the neck on birds, is to reinforce the skeleton against the many stresses of flight. However, fossil evidence found in recent years has revealed that many dinosaurs did indeed have furculae. For example, the dinosaurs in theDromaeosauridaefamily, a group of bird-like dinosaurs, are all believed to have had furculae. This discovery contradicts the theory that the bones are unique to birds.

[A] In addition to the observation of furculae in dinosaur fossils, paleontologists have identified a number of other structural similarities between birds and dinosaurs. [B] For example, comparisons between the skeletons of birds and those of dinosaurs likeVelociraptor mongoliensisandDeinonychusreveal that birds and dinosaurs share many unique skeletal features. [C] For instance,Velociraptorfossils show that the creature’s front limbs, the construction of which would have presumably allowed for great flexibility are similar tothoseof modern birds. [D] On the other hand, no such likenesses exist between dinosaurs and early reptiles.

Anothercompellingpiece of evidence that paleontologists now generally agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs is the presence of feathers in both organisms. Fossils ofArchaeopteryxfeature imprints of feathers that closely resemble those found on modern birds. Since the discovery ofArchaeopteryx, paleontologists have discovered fossils demonstrating that a number of other dinosaurs that were likely related toArchaeopteryxalso had feathers. Furthermore, even the fossils of dinosaurs that were not related toArchaeopteryx, such asTyrannosaurus rex, have been found to have long, feather-like structures that are commonly referred to as protofeathers which help to insulate dinosaurs from cold temperatures, not to assist with flight, which accounts for why many flightless dinosaurs may have had them.

Paleontologists have also found evidence that the lungs of dinosaurs were shaped similarly to birds’ lungs. Birds have extra air sacs in front of and behind their lungs that allow them to keep their lungs inflated constantly and some dinosaurs also had lungs with extra chambers. However, most animals, including primates, lizards, and frogs, have lungs with two compartments. The similarities in skeletal structures, the existence of feathers and extra lung chambers in both groups reveal that birds probably evolved from dinosaurs and are thus their closest living relatives.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In the mid-1800s, scientists discovered the complete skeleton of a dinosaur calledArchaeopteryx lithographica. The creature was thought to have lived approximately 150 million years ago and, curiously, had features that resembled not only dinosaurs, but modern birds as well. For instance, while it had sharp teeth and a bony tail like the dinosaurs of its time, it also had wings and feathers like modern birds. Despite these similarities to birds, the generalconsensuswithin the scientific community was that the closest living relatives of dinosaurs were reptiles, like lizards and alligators. It wasn’t until 1969, when paleontologists discovered the fossils of a dinosaur calledDeinonychus antirrhopus, that the debate about whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs was reopened.

The main problem with the theory linking dinosaurs to modern birds – which was also the main support for arguments that reptiles were, in fact, the closest living ancestors of dinosaurs – was the belief that dinosaurs did not have furculae, or wishbones. The main function of this fork-shaped bone, which is located at the base of the neck on birds, is to reinforce the skeleton against the many stresses of flight. However, fossil evidence found in recent years has revealed that many dinosaurs did indeed have furculae. For example, the dinosaurs in theDromaeosauridaefamily, a group of bird-like dinosaurs, are all believed to have had furculae. This discovery contradicts the theory that the bones are unique to birds.

[A] In addition to the observation of furculae in dinosaur fossils, paleontologists have identified a number of other structural similarities between birds and dinosaurs. [B] For example, comparisons between the skeletons of birds and those of dinosaurs likeVelociraptor mongoliensisandDeinonychusreveal that birds and dinosaurs share many unique skeletal features. [C] For instance,Velociraptorfossils show that the creature’s front limbs, the construction of which would have presumably allowed for great flexibility are similar tothoseof modern birds. [D] On the other hand, no such likenesses exist between dinosaurs and early reptiles.

Anothercompellingpiece of evidence that paleontologists now generally agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs is the presence of feathers in both organisms. Fossils ofArchaeopteryxfeature imprints of feathers that closely resemble those found on modern birds. Since the discovery ofArchaeopteryx, paleontologists have discovered fossils demonstrating that a number of other dinosaurs that were likely related toArchaeopteryxalso had feathers. Furthermore, even the fossils of dinosaurs that were not related toArchaeopteryx, such asTyrannosaurus rex, have been found to have long, feather-like structures that are commonly referred to as protofeathers which help to insulate dinosaurs from cold temperatures, not to assist with flight, which accounts for why many flightless dinosaurs may have had them.

Paleontologists have also found evidence that the lungs of dinosaurs were shaped similarly to birds’ lungs. Birds have extra air sacs in front of and behind their lungs that allow them to keep their lungs inflated constantly and some dinosaurs also had lungs with extra chambers. However, most animals, including primates, lizards, and frogs, have lungs with two compartments. The similarities in skeletal structures, the existence of feathers and extra lung chambers in both groups reveal that birds probably evolved from dinosaurs and are thus their closest living relatives.

PASSAGE 4
Questions 31-40

In the mid-1800s, scientists discovered the complete skeleton of a dinosaur calledArchaeopteryx lithographica. The creature was thought to have lived approximately 150 million years ago and, curiously, had features that resembled not only dinosaurs, but modern birds as well. For instance, while it had sharp teeth and a bony tail like the dinosaurs of its time, it also had wings and feathers like modern birds. Despite these similarities to birds, the generalconsensuswithin the scientific community was that the closest living relatives of dinosaurs were reptiles, like lizards and alligators. It wasn’t until 1969, when paleontologists discovered the fossils of a dinosaur calledDeinonychus antirrhopus, that the debate about whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs was reopened.

The main problem with the theory linking dinosaurs to modern birds – which was also the main support for arguments that reptiles were, in fact, the closest living ancestors of dinosaurs – was the belief that dinosaurs did not have furculae, or wishbones. The main function of this fork-shaped bone, which is located at the base of the neck on birds, is to reinforce the skeleton against the many stresses of flight. However, fossil evidence found in recent years has revealed that many dinosaurs did indeed have furculae. For example, the dinosaurs in theDromaeosauridaefamily, a group of bird-like dinosaurs, are all believed to have had furculae. This discovery contradicts the theory that the bones are unique to birds.

[A] In addition to the observation of furculae in dinosaur fossils, paleontologists have identified a number of other structural similarities between birds and dinosaurs. [B] For example, comparisons between the skeletons of birds and those of dinosaurs likeVelociraptor mongoliensisandDeinonychusreveal that birds and dinosaurs share many unique skeletal features. [C] For instance,Velociraptorfossils show that the creature’s front limbs, the construction of which would have presumably allowed for great flexibility are similar tothoseof modern birds. [D] On the other hand, no such likenesses exist between dinosaurs and early reptiles.

Anothercompellingpiece of evidence that paleontologists now generally agree that birds evolved from dinosaurs is the presence of feathers in both organisms. Fossils ofArchaeopteryxfeature imprints of feathers that closely resemble those found on modern birds. Since the discovery ofArchaeopteryx, paleontologists have discovered fossils demonstrating that a number of other dinosaurs that were likely related toArchaeopteryxalso had feathers. Furthermore, even the fossils of dinosaurs that were not related toArchaeopteryx, such asTyrannosaurus rex, have been found to have long, feather-like structures that are commonly referred to as protofeathers which help to insulate dinosaurs from cold temperatures, not to assist with flight, which accounts for why many flightless dinosaurs may have had them.

Paleontologists have also found evidence that the lungs of dinosaurs were shaped similarly to birds’ lungs. Birds have extra air sacs in front of and behind their lungs that allow them to keep their lungs inflated constantly and some dinosaurs also had lungs with extra chambers. However, most animals, including primates, lizards, and frogs, have lungs with two compartments. The similarities in skeletal structures, the existence of feathers and extra lung chambers in both groups reveal that birds probably evolved from dinosaurs and are thus their closest living relatives.