The village of Vestmannaeyjar, in the far northern country of Iceland, is as bright and clean and up-to-date
as any American or Canadian suburb. It is located on the island of Heimaey, just off the mainland. One
January night in 1973, however, householders were shocked from their sleep. In some backyards red-hot
liquid was spurting from the ground.
Flaming "skyrockets" shot up and over the houses. The island's volcano, Helgafell, silent for seven
thousand years, was violently erupting! Luckily, the island's fishing fleet was in port, and within twenty-four
hours almost everyone was ferried to the mainland. But then the agony of the island began in earnest. As
in a nightmare, fountains of burning lava spurted three hundred feet high. Black, baseball-size cinders
rained down. An evilsmelling, eye-burning, throat-searing cloud of smoke and gas erupted into the air,
and a river of lava flowed down the mountain. The constant shriek of escaping steam was punctuated by
ear-splitting explosions. As time went on, the once pleasant village of Vestmannaeyjar took on a weird
aspect. Its street lamps still burning against the long Arctic night, the town lay under a thick blanket of
cinders. All that could be seen above the ten-foot black drifts were the tips of street signs. Some houses
had collapsed under the weight of cinders; others had burst into flames as the heat ignited their oil storage
tanks. Lighting the whole lurid scene, fire continued to shoot from the mouth of the looming volcano. The
eruption continued for six months. Scientists and reporters arrived from around the world to observe the
awesome natural event. But the town did not die that easily. In July, when the eruption ceased, the people
of Heimaey Island returned to assess the chances of rebuilding their homes and lives. They found tons of
ash covering the ground. The Icelanders are a tough people, however, accustomed to the strange and
violent nature of their Arctic land. They dug out their homes. They even used the cinders to build new
roads and airport runways. Now the new homes of Heimaey are warmed from water pipes heated by
molten lava.
This liquid was coming from the -

• A. ocean
• B. mountains
• C. ground
• D. sea
• E. sky

INTERLOPER : MEDDLE ::

• A. rogue : repent
• B. ombudsman : refine
• C. advocate : espouse
• D. misanthrope : usurp
• E. dilettante : proselytize

The heart of the restorationist critique of environmental preservationism is the claim that it rests on an
unhealthy dualism that conceives nature and humankind as radically distinct and opposed to each other.
The crucial question about the restorationist outlook has to do with the degree to which the restorationist
program is itself faithful to its first principle- that nature and humanity are fundamentally united rather than
separate. Rejecting the old domination model, which sees humans as over nature, restoration theory
champions a model of community participation. Yet some of the descriptions of what restorationists are
actually up to-for example, Turner's description of humans as "the lords of creation," or Jordan's
statement that "the fate and well being of the biosphere depend ultimately on us and our relationship with
it"-do not cohere well with the community-participation model. Another holistic model-namely, that of
nature as an organism-might be more serviceable to the restorationists. As with the community model,
the "organic" model pictures nature as a system of interconnected parts. A fundamental difference,
however, is that in an organism the parts are wholly subservient to the life of the organism.
Which of the following best expresses the function of the first paragraph in relation to the second one?

• A. To identify a problem with a school of thought, which is then explored in detail
• B. To provide an historical backdrop for a discussion of a modern-day issue
• C. To discuss a secondary issue as a prelude to a more detailed examination of a primary issue
• D. To establish the parameters of an ensuing debate
• E. To introduce opposing viewpoints, which are then evaluated

One of the most intriguing stories of the Russian Revolution concerns the identity of Anastasia, the
youngest daughter of Czar Nicholas II. During his reign over Russia, the Czar had planned to revoke
many of the harsh laws established by previous czars. Some workers and peasants, however, clamored
for more rapid social reform. In 1918 a group of these people, known as Bolsheviks, overthrew the
government. On July 17 or 18, they murdered the Czar and what was thought to be his entire family.
Although witnesses vouched that all the members of the Czar's family had been executed, there were
rumors suggesting that Anastasia had survived. Over the years, a number of women claimed to be Grand
Duchess AnastasiA. Perhaps the best -known claimant was Anastasia Tschaikovsky, who was also
known as Anna Anderson. In 1920, eighteen months after the Czar's execution, this terrified young
woman was rescued from drowning in a Berlin river. She spent two years in a hospital, where she
attempted to reclaim her health and shattered mind. The doctors and nurses thought that she resembled
Anastasia and questioned heer about her background. She disclaimed any connection with the Czar's
family. Eight years later, though, she claimed that she was AnastasiA. She said that she had been
rescued by two Russian soldiers after the Czar and the rest of her family had been killed. Two brothers
named Tschaikovsky had carried her into RomaniA. She had married one of the brothers, who had taken
her to Berlin and left her there, penniless and without a vocation. Unable to invoke the aid of her mother's
family in Germany, she had tried to drown herself. During the next few years, scores of the Czar's
relatives, exservants, and acquaintances interviewed her. Many of these people said that her looks and
mannerisms were evocative of the Anastasia that they had known. Her grandmother and other relatives
denied that she was the real Anastasia, however. Tried of being accused of fraud, Anastasia immigrated
to the United States in 1928 and took the name Anna Anderson. She still wished to prove that she was
Anastasia, though, and returned to Germany in 1933 to bring suit against her mother's family. There she
declaimed to the court, asserting that she was indeed Anastasia and deserved her inheritance. In 1957,
the court decided that it could neither confirm nor deny Anastasia's identity. Although we will probably
never know whether this woman was the Grand Duchess Anastasia, her search to establish her identity
has been the subject of numerous books, plays, and movies.
Witnesses ___ that all members of the Czar's family had been executed.

• A. gave assurance
• B. answer not stated
• C. thought
• D. convinced some
• E. hoped