<p>Hello!!! i am struggling with cr questions!!!
Can you help me!!! plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
it's only two questions from college board official practice test!!!</p>
<p>Both passages discuss the issue of the intelligence of dogs.
Passage 1 was adapted from a 2001 book on animal
intelligence. Passage 2 was written in 2001 by a dog
trainer and writer.</p>
<p>Passage 1
It was no accident that nineteenth-century naturalist Charles Darwin strove to connect the mentality and emotionality of people with that of dogs, rather than, say,doves or horses. Neither his theory of evolution nor any general understanding of biology demanded that he preferentially underline our similarity to dogs over other species. But politically and emotionally, the choice was inevitable for an English gentleman who had set himself the task of making the idea of evolutionary continuity palatable. Darwin wrote that “dogs possess something very similar to a conscience. They certainly possess some power of self-command. . . . Dogs have long been accepted as the very type of fidelity and obedience.” Darwin was not alone in his beliefs that dogs possess human virtues. The characteristics of loyalty and obedience, coupled with an expressive face and body, can account for why dogs are such popular and valued pets in many cultures. Depending on the breed and the individual, dogs can be noble, charming, affectionate, and reliable. But while all dog owners should rightly appreciate these and other endearing traits in their pets, nothing says that the cleverness of a highly intelligent primate such as a chimpanzee is part of the package. Scientists generally believe the reasoning abilities of chimps to be considerably greater than that of dogs. But many people nonetheless believe that dogs are smarter than chimps precisely because of our familiarity and emotional ties with the dogs that we love. We apply the same secret rules to our fellow humans: the old in-group, out-group story. People in your in-group are those who are similar to you, either because they belong to the same organizations as you, or enjoy the same activities, or, and this is the kicker, because they are simply around more often. Dogs, because of their proximity to
their owners, are definitely in. The intensity of our relationship with dogs causes us, quite naturally, to imbue them with high-level mental abilities, whether they have earned those extra intelligence points or not. We like them, so we think well of them.</p>
<p>Passage 2
Every dog trainer that I know had the same childhood, a childhood filled with the brilliant, heroic dogs of literature. We read about dogs who regularly traveled thousands of miles to be reunited with owners who somehow misplaced them, repeatedly saved people from certain death, and continually exhibited a better grasp of strategic problem solving than the average Ph.D. In the preface to one of his many dog stories, S. P. Meek a bit shamefacedly remarked that in writing of dogs “I endeavored to hold these heroes down to the level of canine intelligence, and to make them, above all, believable. If at times I seem to have made them show supercanine intelligence, it is because my enthusiasm has run away with me.” We forgave him, of course. It was something of a shock, therefore, to discover how the learning theory “experts” believed dogs think and learn. I was told that dogs, unlike chimpanzees, have no real reasoning ability. Dogs don’t think: rather, they learn to avoid the unpleasant (negative reinforcement), seek the pleasant (positive reinforcement), or some combination of the two. To contend otherwise was to be guilty of the sin of anthropomorphizing, the attribution to an animal of motivations and consciousness that only a human being could possess. Yet as a dog trainer, I find myself siding more with the Meeks than I do with the learning theorists: nobody could believe dispassionately in the totality of positive and negative reinforcement after seeing the pure intelligence shining in the face of a border collie intent upon helping a shepherd herd sheep. Dogs do think and reason. Granted, a dog might not be able to run a maze as quickly as a chimp. But a dog outshines any other animal that I know in the ability to work willingly with a human being, to communicate with a puzzling creature who often makes incomprehensible demands. Researchers have increasingly come to view intelligence as a complex collection of mental abilities that cannot be fully captured in any simple way. Dogs are geniuses at being useful, and it is this usefulness that we admire when we praise their intelligence. As Jonica Newby, a specialist in animal-human interaction, writes, “In some ways intelligence is a matter of matching behavior to environment. To compare intelligence in creatures that have evolved differently is a bit like deciding which has hit upon the best mode of travel: the dolphin or the horse.” And it is dogs, not chimps, who possess the most helpful mode of travel for human beings.</p>
<ol>
<li>The “experts” (line 53) would most likely argue that which of the following is guilty of the “sin” mentioned in line 58 ?
(A) A veterinarian who is unwilling to treat a sick animal
(B) A cat owner who believes his cat misses its siblings
(C) A dog owner who is unwilling to punish her dog for misbehaving
(D) A zoologist who places the interests of people before those of animals
(E) A horse trainer who fails to recognize that his horse is hungry</li>
</ol>
<p>The answer is B! Can you explain why?</p>
<ol>
<li>Both the author of Passage 1 and the “experts” mentioned in line 53 of Passage 2 directly support the idea that
(A) writers of dog stories intentionally distort the truth for dramatic purposes
(B) comparing the intelligence of dogs to that of chimps is a pointless enterprise
(C) many people have an excessive emotional attachment to their dogs
(D) dogs are less intelligent than many people believe
(E) few people are familiar with learning theory as it applies to dogs</li>
</ol>
<p>The answer is D!!! please explain why!!!! </p>
<p>thank you for reading this!!!!</p>