Free ACT Test Exam Braindumps
American College Testing: English, Math, Reading, Science, Writing Questions 426–430 (page: 87)

The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years.

(1) The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of classification. The classifications (also known as taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analogical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups ­ plants, animals, and humans. According to this classification, human beings are not a special kind of animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus, any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, is sheer poetic metaphor.

(2) Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treating plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their environments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the human species is unique. In the first, it has a kingdom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy.

(3) Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees does not count as a genuine language. I have never been able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how ingenious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observations hold for rationality and anything a computer might do.

Which best summarizes the idea of "uniquely unique"?

The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years.

(1) The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of classification. The classifications (also known as taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analogical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups ­ plants, animals, and humans. According to this classification, human beings are not a special kind of animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus, any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, is sheer poetic metaphor.

(2) Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treating plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their environments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the human species is unique. In the first, it has a kingdom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy.

(3) Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees does not count as a genuine language. I have never been able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how ingenious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observations hold for rationality and anything a computer might do.

In paragraph three (3), "insulated from" means:

The following passage is from a discussion of various ways that living creatures have been classified over the years.

(1) The world can be classified in different ways, depending on one's interests and principles of classification. The classifications (also known as taxonomies) in turn determine which comparisons seem natural or unnatural, which literal or analogical. For example, it has been common to classify living creatures into three distinct groups ­ plants, animals, and humans. According to this classification, human beings are not a special kind of animal, nor animals a special kind of plant. Thus, any comparisons between the three groups are strictly analogical. Reasoning from inheritance in garden peas to inheritance in fruit flies, and from these two species to inheritance in human beings, is sheer poetic metaphor.

(2) Another mode of classifying living creatures is commonly attributed to Aristotle. Instead of treating plants, animals, and humans as distinct groups, they are nested. All living creatures possess a vegetative soul that enables them to grow and metabolize. Of these, some also have a sensory soul that enables them to sense their environments and move. One species also has a rational soul that is capable of true understanding. Thus, human beings are a special sort of animal, and animals are a special sort of plant. Given this classification, reasoning from human beings to all other species with respect to the attributes of the vegetative soul is legitimate, reasoning from human beings to other animals with respect to the attributes of the sensory soul is also legitimate, but reasoning from the rational characteristics of the human species to any other species is merely analogical. According to both classifications, the human species is unique. In the first, it has a kingdom all to itself; in the second, it stands at the pinnacle of the taxonomic hierarchy.

(3) Homo sapiens is unique. All species are. But this sort of uniqueness is not enough for many (probably most) people, philosophers included. For some reason, it is very important that the species to which we belong be uniquely unique. It is of utmost importance that the human species be insulated from all other species with respect to how we explain certain qualities. Human beings clearly are capable of developing and learning languages. For some reason, it is very important that the waggle dance performed by bees does not count as a genuine language. I have never been able to understand why. I happen to think that the waggle dance differs from human languages to such a degree that little is gained by terming them both "languages," but even if "language" is so defined that the waggle dance slips in, bees still remain bees. It is equally important to some that no other species use tools. No matter how ingenious other species get in the manipulation of objects in their environment, it is absolutely essential that nothing they do count as "tool use." I, however, fail to see what difference it makes whether any of these devices such as probes and anvils, etc. are really tools. All the species involved remain distinct biological species no matter what decisions are made. Similar observations hold for rationality and anything a computer might do.

In the third paragraph (3), the author criticizes those who believe that:

WHAT IS EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY?

SmithCo, Inc.
Associate Manual

Commitment to Equal Employment Opportunity

Equal Employment Opportunity
Equal Opportunity is the expressed policy of SmithCo. Our policy is to select the best-qualified person for each position in the organization and to conduct all business relationships without prejudice. SmithCo is committed to the principles of equal employment opportunity for all employees and applicants for employment. Advancement opportunities and employment decisions will be made without regard to race, creed, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, veteran or military status, or any other characteristic protected under federal, state, or local law.

Managers are expected to seek out a diverse pool of candidates for consideration when making hiring decisions. SmithCo also develops an annual Affirmative Action program, which is a federal requirement due to our status as a government contractor. The leadership team plays an active role in demonstrating SmithCo's commitment by providing equal employment opportunities at all levels of employment. Managers and employees are advised to meet with the HR manager for assistance in meeting the standards set in this policy.

Equal Employment Opportunity Applies Throughout The Employment Process To advance the principles of equal employment opportunity, SmithCo also extends this policy to every phase of the employment process including, but not limited to, recruitment, selection, placement, transfer, training and development, promotion, compensation, benefits, layoffs, termination, and all other conditions or benefits of employment. All employees are expected to abide by and promote this policy of equal employment opportunity within the organization, as well as with those who have a business relationship with SmithCo.

Equal Employment Opportunity Requires the Participation of All Associates While overall authority for implementing an Equal Employment Opportunity policy is assigned to the Vice President of Human Resources, an effective equal employment opportunity program cannot be achieved without the support of all associates. Any associate who feels they have been denied equal opportunity or subjected to discrimination should consult with their manager or HR representative. SmithCo's Employee Assistance Program also provides assistance with these matters.

How is this policy organized?

WHAT IS EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY?

SmithCo, Inc.
Associate Manual

Commitment to Equal Employment Opportunity

Equal Employment Opportunity
Equal Opportunity is the expressed policy of SmithCo. Our policy is to select the best-qualified person for each position in the organization and to conduct all business relationships without prejudice. SmithCo is committed to the principles of equal employment opportunity for all employees and applicants for employment. Advancement opportunities and employment decisions will be made without regard to race, creed, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, veteran or military status, or any other characteristic protected under federal, state, or local law.

Managers are expected to seek out a diverse pool of candidates for consideration when making hiring decisions. SmithCo also develops an annual Affirmative Action program, which is a federal requirement due to our status as a government contractor. The leadership team plays an active role in demonstrating SmithCo's commitment by providing equal employment opportunities at all levels of employment. Managers and employees are advised to meet with the HR manager for assistance in meeting the standards set in this policy.

Equal Employment Opportunity Applies Throughout The Employment Process To advance the principles of equal employment opportunity, SmithCo also extends this policy to every phase of the employment process including, but not limited to, recruitment, selection, placement, transfer, training and development, promotion, compensation, benefits, layoffs, termination, and all other conditions or benefits of employment. All employees are expected to abide by and promote this policy of equal employment opportunity within the organization, as well as with those who have a business relationship with SmithCo.

Equal Employment Opportunity Requires the Participation of All Associates While overall authority for implementing an Equal Employment Opportunity policy is assigned to the Vice President of Human Resources, an effective equal employment opportunity program cannot be achieved without the support of all associates. Any associate who feels they have been denied equal opportunity or subjected to discrimination should consult with their manager or HR representative. SmithCo's Employee Assistance Program also provides assistance with these matters.

What is the main purpose of SmithCo's equal employment opportunity policy?