Based on lines 63-67 (“nobody . . . sheep”), the author
of Passage 2 would most likely appear to the author of
Passage 1 as
(A) a neutral observer of animal behavior
(B) well informed concerning research into animal
(C) having a deep fondness for border collies and
therefore overestimating them
(D) having little respect for traditional scientific
(E) having a narrow understanding of what constitutes


  1. (C) “having a deep fondness for border collies and  therefore overestimating them”
    While acknowledging that “dogs may be noble, charming, loyal, and dependable,” the author of Passage 1 speculates that they might not have “earned those extra intellect points.” In contrast, the author’s admiration for dogs may lead one to believe that the depiction of “pure intelligence shining in the face of a border collie” in lines 63–67 is exaggerated.
    The answer is not (A). Passage 1’s author would probably assume that Passage 2’s author has a strong emotional bond with dogs. (B) is the wrong answer. The subjective assessment of canine intellect is shown in lines 63–67. They don’t imply that the author of Passage 2 has in-depth understanding of the relevant studies.
    The answer is not (D). Despite the fact that the author of Passage 2 appears to prefer personal experience over the findings of scientific investigations, lines 63–67 do not demonstrate any scorn for “traditionalresearch. The answer is not (E).
    It would be harsh to assert that the author of Passage 2 has a limited understandingof what constitutes intelligence” despite the fact that the two authors may hold different opinions on the degree to which dogs are able to reason.
    Here’s another question with an answer similar to this about dogs:


Leave a Comment