1.Correct Answer: B

　　Explanation:

　　We know that the hospital is on the author’s road to Westminster, but there is no information about how long the route is, and so we cannot say that it is “very close”. We cannot say that the author has visited this particular hospital before since we are told only that the author has “visited a hospital like this”. But it is clear that the hospital patients are regarded as insane, hence only statement II is correct.

　　2.Correct Answer: D

　　Explanation:

　　Check each term: rhetorical questions are there (they are questions used for effect rather than to elicit an answer). Personal anecdote is narration of the author’s own experiences, a technique that the author uses both in referring to his previous visit to a similar hospital and in the narration of his wandering one night. Allusion is indirect reference and is used when the author refers to the ‘great master’. Repetition and parallel construction are there (you can find many words repeated, and the questions are framed in parallel ways). But there is no metaphor. A metaphor is an implied comparison, for example, if we describe a person as a “rock in times of trouble” we are using a metaphor, because a person cannot actually be a rock.

　　3.Correct Answer: D

　　Explanation:

　　The example is inserted to make clearer the rather abstract idea in the previous sentence. The idea is that an effect can become a cause. In this example the initial drinking is an effect of feeling a failure, but the drinking in turn becomes the cause of further failure.

　　4.Correct Answer: B

　　Explanation:

　　Answer B is correct because it conveys what the author means when he says “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts”. Note how the words “slovenliness of our language” in the text are paraphrased as “imprecise use of language”. The word “never” makes answer A too strong to be correct. Answer C is again too strong because the author is alerting us to the fact the language becomes ugly when we think foolishly, and does not state that the whole language is ugly. D is obviously too generalized, and so is E (note the words “all” and “generally” that help us identify these as incorrect.)

　　5.Correct Answer: C

　　Explanation:

　　The term “three-fold power” is a rhetorical device (one used for effect) to help prepare the reader for the three stages in his argument, stages in which he shows that loss of wildlife is more serious than loss of natural resources other than wild-life, and loss of money.

　　6.Correct Answer: D

　　Explanation:

　　If a criminal is caught red-handed and yet not punished, it implies that the crime is not taken seriously. Hence we can say that poaching (stealing animals from someone else’s land) was not regarded as serious. The word in the answer choices that means “not serious” is trivial.

　　7.Correct Answer: A

　　Explanation:

　　In paragraph one we are clearly told that wildlife once lost cannot be replaced (gone even beyond the hope of recall). The second tells us this in an indirect way: the public has a wrong idea that there is a way that Nature can fill the gaps. From this we can infer that the author of paragraph two believes that there is no way to replace lost wildlife. In any case the other answers are easy to eliminate because poachers and human development are not in passage one, other natural resources are not in two, and expense is in neither.

　　8.Correct Answer: C

　　Explanation:

　　The spendthrift wastes money so that it is not available to his descendents (but money is not a natural resource, so eliminate answer B). The poor settler does not think about the need to conserve wildlife (but that is nothing to do with spending, so eliminate D). We are not told whether the spendthrift is even aware of conservation, so eliminate A and E. C is correct as wasting money now without regard to the needs of future generations, is like poaching animals now without regard to future needs.