CTwo recent publications offer different assessments of the career of the famous British nurse Florence Nightingale. A book by Anne Summers seeks to debunk the idealizations and present a reality at odds with Nightingale's heroic reputation. According to Summers Nightingale's importance during the Crimean War has been exaggerated: not until near the war's end did she become supervisor of the female nurses. Additionally, Summers writes that the contribution of the nurses to the relief of the wounded was at best marginal. The prevailing problems of military medicine were caused by army organizational practices, and the addition of a few nurses to the medical staff could be no more than symbolic. Nightingale's place in the national pantheon, Summers asserts, is largely due to the propagandistic efforts of contemporary newspaper reporters.

By contrast, the editors of a new volume of Nightingale's letters view Nightingale as a person who significantly influenced not only her own age but also subsequent generations. They highlight her ongoing efforts to reform sanitary conditions after the war. For example, when she learned that peacetime living conditions in British barracks were so horrible that the death rate of enlisted men far exceeded that of neighboring civilian populations, she succeeded in persuading the government to establish a Royal Commission on the Health of the Army. She used sums raised through public contributions to found a nurses' training hospital in London. Even in administrative matters, the editors assert her practical intelligence was formidable: as recently as 1947 the British Army's medical services were still using the cost-accounting system she had devised in the 1860's.

I believe that the evidence of her letters supports continued respect for Nightingale's brilliance and creativity. When counseling a village schoolmaster to encourage children to use their faculties of observation she sounds like a modern educator. Her insistence on classifying the problems of the needy in order to devise appropriate treatments is similar to the approach of modern social workers. In sum, although Nightingale may not have achieved all other goals during the Crimean War, her breadth of vision and ability to realize ambitious projects have earned her an eminent place among the ranks of social pioneers.

The passage is primarily concerned with evaluating

Two recent publications offer different assessments of the career of the famous British nurse Florence Nightingale. A book by Anne Summers seeks to debunk the idealizations and present a reality at odds with Nightingale's heroic reputation. According to Summers Nightingale's importance during the Crimean War has been exaggerated: not until near the war's end did she become supervisor of the female nurses. Additionally, Summers writes that the contribution of the nurses to the relief of the wounded was at best marginal. The prevailing problems of military medicine were caused by army organizational practices, and the addition of a few nurses to the medical staff could be no more than symbolic. Nightingale's place in the national pantheon, Summers asserts, is largely due to the propagandistic efforts of contemporary newspaper reporters.

By contrast, the editors of a new volume of Nightingale's letters view Nightingale as a person who significantly influenced not only her own age but also subsequent generations. They highlight her ongoing efforts to reform sanitary conditions after the war. For example, when she learned that peacetime living conditions in British barracks were so horrible that the death rate of enlisted men far exceeded that of neighboring civilian populations, she succeeded in persuading the government to establish a Royal Commission on the Health of the Army. She used sums raised through public contributions to found a nurses' training hospital in London. Even in administrative matters, the editors assert her practical intelligence was formidable: as recently as 1947 the British Army's medical services were still using the cost-accounting system she had devised in the 1860's.

I believe that the evidence of her letters supports continued respect for Nightingale's brilliance and creativity. When counseling a village schoolmaster to encourage children to use their faculties of observation she sounds like a modern educator. Her insistence on classifying the problems of the needy in order to devise appropriate treatments is similar to the approach of modern social workers. In sum, although Nightingale may not have achieved all other goals during the Crimean War, her breadth of vision and ability to realize ambitious projects have earned her an eminent place among the ranks of social pioneers.

According to the passage, the editors of Nightingale's letters credit her with contributing to which of the following?

Two recent publications offer different assessments of the career of the famous British nurse Florence Nightingale. A book by Anne Summers seeks to debunk the idealizations and present a reality at odds with Nightingale's heroic reputation. According to Summers Nightingale's importance during the Crimean War has been exaggerated: not until near the war's end did she become supervisor of the female nurses. Additionally, Summers writes that the contribution of the nurses to the relief of the wounded was at best marginal. The prevailing problems of military medicine were caused by army organizational practices, and the addition of a few nurses to the medical staff could be no more than symbolic. Nightingale's place in the national pantheon, Summers asserts, is largely due to the propagandistic efforts of contemporary newspaper reporters.

By contrast, the editors of a new volume of Nightingale's letters view Nightingale as a person who significantly influenced not only her own age but also subsequent generations. They highlight her ongoing efforts to reform sanitary conditions after the war. For example, when she learned that peacetime living conditions in British barracks were so horrible that the death rate of enlisted men far exceeded that of neighboring civilian populations, she succeeded in persuading the government to establish a Royal Commission on the Health of the Army. She used sums raised through public contributions to found a nurses' training hospital in London. Even in administrative matters, the editors assert her practical intelligence was formidable: as recently as 1947 the British Army's medical services were still using the cost-accounting system she had devised in the 1860's.

I believe that the evidence of her letters supports continued respect for Nightingale's brilliance and creativity. When counseling a village schoolmaster to encourage children to use their faculties of observation she sounds like a modern educator. Her insistence on classifying the problems of the needy in order to devise appropriate treatments is similar to the approach of modern social workers. In sum, although Nightingale may not have achieved all other goals during the Crimean War, her breadth of vision and ability to realize ambitious projects have earned her an eminent place among the ranks of social pioneers.

The passage suggests which of the following about Nightingale's relationship with the British public of her day?

CTwo recent publications offer different assessments of the career of the famous British nurse Florence Nightingale. A book by Anne Summers seeks to debunk the idealizations and present a reality at odds with Nightingale's heroic reputation. According to Summers Nightingale's importance during the Crimean War has been exaggerated: not until near the war's end did she become supervisor of the female nurses. Additionally, Summers writes that the contribution of the nurses to the relief of the wounded was at best marginal. The prevailing problems of military medicine were caused by army organizational practices, and the addition of a few nurses to the medical staff could be no more than symbolic. Nightingale's place in the national pantheon, Summers asserts, is largely due to the propagandistic efforts of contemporary newspaper reporters.

By contrast, the editors of a new volume of Nightingale's letters view Nightingale as a person who significantly influenced not only her own age but also subsequent generations. They highlight her ongoing efforts to reform sanitary conditions after the war. For example, when she learned that peacetime living conditions in British barracks were so horrible that the death rate of enlisted men far exceeded that of neighboring civilian populations, she succeeded in persuading the government to establish a Royal Commission on the Health of the Army. She used sums raised through public contributions to found a nurses' training hospital in London. Even in administrative matters, the editors assert her practical intelligence was formidable: as recently as 1947 the British Army's medical services were still using the cost-accounting system she had devised in the 1860's.

I believe that the evidence of her letters supports continued respect for Nightingale's brilliance and creativity. When counseling a village schoolmaster to encourage children to use their faculties of observation she sounds like a modern educator. Her insistence on classifying the problems of the needy in order to devise appropriate treatments is similar to the approach of modern social workers. In sum, although Nightingale may not have achieved all other goals during the Crimean War, her breadth of vision and ability to realize ambitious projects have earned her an eminent place among the ranks of social pioneers.

The passage suggests which of the following about sanitary conditions in Britain after the Crimean War?

Two recent publications offer different assessments of the career of the famous British nurse Florence Nightingale. A book by Anne Summers seeks to debunk the idealizations and present a reality at odds with Nightingale's heroic reputation. According to Summers Nightingale's importance during the Crimean War has been exaggerated: not until near the war's end did she become supervisor of the female nurses. Additionally, Summers writes that the contribution of the nurses to the relief of the wounded was at best marginal. The prevailing problems of military medicine were caused by army organizational practices, and the addition of a few nurses to the medical staff could be no more than symbolic. Nightingale's place in the national pantheon, Summers asserts, is largely due to the propagandistic efforts of contemporary newspaper reporters.

By contrast, the editors of a new volume of Nightingale's letters view Nightingale as a person who significantly influenced not only her own age but also subsequent generations. They highlight her ongoing efforts to reform sanitary conditions after the war. For example, when she learned that peacetime living conditions in British barracks were so horrible that the death rate of enlisted men far exceeded that of neighboring civilian populations, she succeeded in persuading the government to establish a Royal Commission on the Health of the Army. She used sums raised through public contributions to found a nurses' training hospital in London. Even in administrative matters, the editors assert her practical intelligence was formidable: as recently as 1947 the British Army's medical services were still using the cost-accounting system she had devised in the 1860's.

I believe that the evidence of her letters supports continued respect for Nightingale's brilliance and creativity. When counseling a village schoolmaster to encourage children to use their faculties of observation she sounds like a modern educator. Her insistence on classifying the problems of the needy in order to devise appropriate treatments is similar to the approach of modern social workers. In sum, although Nightingale may not have achieved all other goals during the Crimean War, her breadth of vision and ability to realize ambitious projects have earned her an eminent place among the ranks of social pioneers.

With which of the following statements regarding the differing interpretations of Nightingale's importance would the author most likely agree?

Two recent publications offer different assessments of the career of the famous British nurse Florence Nightingale. A book by Anne Summers seeks to debunk the idealizations and present a reality at odds with Nightingale's heroic reputation. According to Summers Nightingale's importance during the Crimean War has been exaggerated: not until near the war's end did she become supervisor of the female nurses. Additionally, Summers writes that the contribution of the nurses to the relief of the wounded was at best marginal. The prevailing problems of military medicine were caused by army organizational practices, and the addition of a few nurses to the medical staff could be no more than symbolic. Nightingale's place in the national pantheon, Summers asserts, is largely due to the propagandistic efforts of contemporary newspaper reporters.

By contrast, the editors of a new volume of Nightingale's letters view Nightingale as a person who significantly influenced not only her own age but also subsequent generations. They highlight her ongoing efforts to reform sanitary conditions after the war. For example, when she learned that peacetime living conditions in British barracks were so horrible that the death rate of enlisted men far exceeded that of neighboring civilian populations, she succeeded in persuading the government to establish a Royal Commission on the Health of the Army. She used sums raised through public contributions to found a nurses' training hospital in London. Even in administrative matters, the editors assert her practical intelligence was formidable: as recently as 1947 the British Army's medical services were still using the cost-accounting system she had devised in the 1860's.

I believe that the evidence of her letters supports continued respect for Nightingale's brilliance and creativity. When counseling a village schoolmaster to encourage children to use their faculties of observation she sounds like a modern educator. Her insistence on classifying the problems of the needy in order to devise appropriate treatments is similar to the approach of modern social workers. In sum, although Nightingale may not have achieved all other goals during the Crimean War, her breadth of vision and ability to realize ambitious projects have earned her an eminent place among the ranks of social pioneers.

Which of the following is an assumption underlying the author's assessment of Nightingale's creativity?

Two recent publications offer different assessments of the career of the famous British nurse Florence Nightingale. A book by Anne Summers seeks to debunk the idealizations and present a reality at odds with Nightingale's heroic reputation. According to Summers Nightingale's importance during the Crimean War has been exaggerated: not until near the war's end did she become supervisor of the female nurses. Additionally, Summers writes that the contribution of the nurses to the relief of the wounded was at best marginal. The prevailing problems of military medicine were caused by army organizational practices, and the addition of a few nurses to the medical staff could be no more than symbolic. Nightingale's place in the national pantheon, Summers asserts, is largely due to the propagandistic efforts of contemporary newspaper reporters.

By contrast, the editors of a new volume of Nightingale's letters view Nightingale as a person who significantly influenced not only her own age but also subsequent generations. They highlight her ongoing efforts to reform sanitary conditions after the war. For example, when she learned that peacetime living conditions in British barracks were so horrible that the death rate of enlisted men far exceeded that of neighboring civilian populations, she succeeded in persuading the government to establish a Royal Commission on the Health of the Army. She used sums raised through public contributions to found a nurses' training hospital in London. Even in administrative matters, the editors assert her practical intelligence was formidable: as recently as 1947 the British Army's medical services were still using the cost-accounting system she had devised in the 1860's.

I believe that the evidence of her letters supports continued respect for Nightingale's brilliance and creativity. When counseling a village schoolmaster to encourage children to use their faculties of observation she sounds like a modern educator. Her insistence on classifying the problems of the needy in order to devise appropriate treatments is similar to the approach of modern social workers. In sum, although Nightingale may not have achieved all other goals during the Crimean War, her breadth of vision and ability to realize ambitious projects have earned her an eminent place among the ranks of social pioneers.

In the last paragraph, the author is primarily concerned with

CThe professionalization of the study of history in the second half of the nineteenth century, including history's transformation from a literary genre to a scientific discipline, had important consequences not only for historians' perceptions of women but also for women as historians. The disappearance of women as objects of historical studies during this period has elements of irony to it. On the one hand, in writing about women, earlier historians had relied not on firsthand sources but rather on secondary sources; the shift to more rigorous research methods required that secondary sources be disregarded. On the other hand, the development of archival research and the critical editing of collections of documents began to reveal significant new historical evidence concerning women, yet this evidence was perceived as substantially irrelevant: historians saw political history as the general framework for historical writing. Because women were seen as belonging to the private rather than to the public sphere, the discovery of documents about them, or by them, did not, by itself, produce history acknowledging the contributions of women. In addition, genres such as biography and memoir, those forms of "particular history" that women had traditionally authored, fell into disrepute. The dividing line between "particular history" and general history was redefined in stronger terms, widening the gulf between amateur and professional practices of historical research.

The passage is primarily concerned with

The professionalization of the study of history in the second half of the nineteenth century, including history's transformation from a literary genre to a scientific discipline, had important consequences not only for historians' perceptions of women but also for women as historians. The disappearance of women as objects of historical studies during this period has elements of irony to it. On the one hand, in writing about women, earlier historians had relied not on firsthand sources but rather on secondary sources; the shift to more rigorous research methods required that secondary sources be disregarded. On the other hand, the development of archival research and the critical editing of collections of documents began to reveal significant new historical evidence concerning women, yet this evidence was perceived as substantially irrelevant: historians saw political history as the general framework for historical writing. Because women were seen as belonging to the private rather than to the public sphere, the discovery of documents about them, or by them, did not, by itself, produce history acknowledging the contributions of women. In addition, genres such as biography and memoir, those forms of "particular history" that women had traditionally authored, fell into disrepute. The dividing line between "particular history" and general history was redefined in stronger terms, widening the gulf between amateur and professional practices of historical research.

Which of the following best describes one of the "elements of irony" referred to in the highlighted text?

The professionalization of the study of history in the second half of the nineteenth century, including history's transformation from a literary genre to a scientific discipline, had important consequences not only for historians' perceptions of women but also for women as historians. The disappearance of women as objects of historical studies during this period has elements of irony to it. On the one hand, in writing about women, earlier historians had relied not on firsthand sources but rather on secondary sources; the shift to more rigorous research methods required that secondary sources be disregarded. On the other hand, the development of archival research and the critical editing of collections of documents began to reveal significant new historical evidence concerning women, yet this evidence was perceived as substantially irrelevant: historians saw political history as the general framework for historical writing. Because women were seen as belonging to the private rather than to the public sphere, the discovery of documents about them, or by them, did not, by itself, produce history acknowledging the contributions of women. In addition, genres such as biography and memoir, those forms of "particular history" that women had traditionally authored, fell into disrepute. The dividing line between "particular history" and general history was redefined in stronger terms, widening the gulf between amateur and professional practices of historical research.

According to the passage, the development of archival research and the critical editing of collections of documents had which of the following effects?

Despite radical differences in what limbs do and what they look like, the underlying blueprint of all limbs in land based animals, whether those limbs are wings in birds, flippers in penguins, or hands in humans, is the same - one bone, the humerus in the arm or the femur in the leg, articulates with two bones, which attach to a series of small blobs, which connect with the fingers or toes. Want to make a bat wing? Make the fingers really long. Want to make a horse? Elongate the middle fingers and toes and lose the outer ones. The differences between creatures lie in differences in the shapes and sizes of the bones and the numbers of blobs, fingers, and toes.

In the 1950s and 1960s a number of biologists, including Edgar Zwilling and John Saunders, did extraordinarily creative experiments on chicken eggs to understand how skeletal structure of limbs forms and uncovered some of the key mechanisms that build limbs that have the same architecture but are as different as bird wings, lizards webbings, and human hands . They discovered that two little patches of tissue essentially control the development of the pattern of bones inside limbs. These patches of tissue were named the zone of polarizing activity (ZPA). The cells in the ZPA made special molecules that then spread across the limb to instruct cells to make femur, articulates, and connecting toes. The concentration of these molecules was the important factor and decided the length of femur, articulates, connecting toes, and even the length of individual toe fingers. Later experiments with other animals such as the bat, frog, etc. proved that the mechanism to form limbs remained the same - formation of limbs in every creature was controlled by the ZPA – just the concentration of these special molecules varied corresponding to the desired structure.

The reason for this inherent commonality in architecture still remained a conundrum for decades. Why did nature not develop architectures better optimized to the functional needs of various organisms?  The discovery of Tiktaalik, a transition between non-tetrapod vertebrates ("fish") to early tetrapods solved this mystery, providing evidence that all land based creatures that have limbs, hands, etc. share a common ancestor. The fact that our DNA and that of all land based animals can be traced back to Tiktaalik further provided evidence that all appendages, whether they are hands or limbs, are built by similar kinds of genes and that this great evolutionary transformation did not involve the origin of new DNA: much of the shift likely involved using ancient genes, such as those involved in development of Tiktaalik’s limbs, in new ways to make wings in birds or various sized limbs with fingers and toes, explaining the diversity in shapes while maintaining the similarity in architecture.

According to the passage the mechanism that builds limbs as different as bird wings, penguin flippers, and human hands etc. is

Despite radical differences in what limbs do and what they look like, the underlying blueprint of all limbs in land based animals, whether those limbs are wings in birds, flippers in penguins, or hands in humans, is the same - one bone, the humerus in the arm or the femur in the leg, articulates with two bones, which attach to a series of small blobs, which connect with the fingers or toes. Want to make a bat wing? Make the fingers really long. Want to make a horse? Elongate the middle fingers and toes and lose the outer ones. The differences between creatures lie in differences in the shapes and sizes of the bones and the numbers of blobs, fingers, and toes.

In the 1950s and 1960s a number of biologists, including Edgar Zwilling and John Saunders, did extraordinarily creative experiments on chicken eggs to understand how skeletal structure of limbs forms and uncovered some of the key mechanisms that build limbs that have the same architecture but are as different as bird wings, lizards webbings, and human hands . They discovered that two little patches of tissue essentially control the development of the pattern of bones inside limbs. These patches of tissue were named the zone of polarizing activity (ZPA). The cells in the ZPA made special molecules that then spread across the limb to instruct cells to make femur, articulates, and connecting toes. The concentration of these molecules was the important factor and decided the length of femur, articulates, connecting toes, and even the length of individual toe fingers. Later experiments with other animals such as the bat, frog, etc. proved that the mechanism to form limbs remained the same - formation of limbs in every creature was controlled by the ZPA – just the concentration of these special molecules varied corresponding to the desired structure.

The reason for this inherent commonality in architecture still remained a conundrum for decades. Why did nature not develop architectures better optimized to the functional needs of various organisms?  The discovery of Tiktaalik, a transition between non-tetrapod vertebrates ("fish") to early tetrapods solved this mystery, providing evidence that all land based creatures that have limbs, hands, etc. share a common ancestor. The fact that our DNA and that of all land based animals can be traced back to Tiktaalik further provided evidence that all appendages, whether they are hands or limbs, are built by similar kinds of genes and that this great evolutionary transformation did not involve the origin of new DNA: much of the shift likely involved using ancient genes, such as those involved in development of Tiktaalik’s limbs, in new ways to make wings in birds or various sized limbs with fingers and toes, explaining the diversity in shapes while maintaining the similarity in architecture.

In the context of the passage, why was the discovery of the Tiktaalik important?

Despite radical differences in what limbs do and what they look like, the underlying blueprint of all limbs in land based animals, whether those limbs are wings in birds, flippers in penguins, or hands in humans, is the same - one bone, the humerus in the arm or the femur in the leg, articulates with two bones, which attach to a series of small blobs, which connect with the fingers or toes. Want to make a bat wing? Make the fingers really long. Want to make a horse? Elongate the middle fingers and toes and lose the outer ones. The differences between creatures lie in differences in the shapes and sizes of the bones and the numbers of blobs, fingers, and toes.

In the 1950s and 1960s a number of biologists, including Edgar Zwilling and John Saunders, did extraordinarily creative experiments on chicken eggs to understand how skeletal structure of limbs forms and uncovered some of the key mechanisms that build limbs that have the same architecture but are as different as bird wings, lizards webbings, and human hands . They discovered that two little patches of tissue essentially control the development of the pattern of bones inside limbs. These patches of tissue were named the zone of polarizing activity (ZPA). The cells in the ZPA made special molecules that then spread across the limb to instruct cells to make femur, articulates, and connecting toes. The concentration of these molecules was the important factor and decided the length of femur, articulates, connecting toes, and even the length of individual toe fingers. Later experiments with other animals such as the bat, frog, etc. proved that the mechanism to form limbs remained the same - formation of limbs in every creature was controlled by the ZPA – just the concentration of these special molecules varied corresponding to the desired structure.

The reason for this inherent commonality in architecture still remained a conundrum for decades. Why did nature not develop architectures better optimized to the functional needs of various organisms?  The discovery of Tiktaalik, a transition between non-tetrapod vertebrates ("fish") to early tetrapods solved this mystery, providing evidence that all land based creatures that have limbs, hands, etc. share a common ancestor. The fact that our DNA and that of all land based animals can be traced back to Tiktaalik further provided evidence that all appendages, whether they are hands or limbs, are built by similar kinds of genes and that this great evolutionary transformation did not involve the origin of new DNA: much of the shift likely involved using ancient genes, such as those involved in development of Tiktaalik’s limbs, in new ways to make wings in birds or various sized limbs with fingers and toes, explaining the diversity in shapes while maintaining the similarity in architecture.

From the passage, what can be inferred about the architecture of limbs?

Despite radical differences in what limbs do and what they look like, the underlying blueprint of all limbs in land based animals, whether those limbs are wings in birds, flippers in penguins, or hands in humans, is the same - one bone, the humerus in the arm or the femur in the leg, articulates with two bones, which attach to a series of small blobs, which connect with the fingers or toes. Want to make a bat wing? Make the fingers really long. Want to make a horse? Elongate the middle fingers and toes and lose the outer ones. The differences between creatures lie in differences in the shapes and sizes of the bones and the numbers of blobs, fingers, and toes.

In the 1950s and 1960s a number of biologists, including Edgar Zwilling and John Saunders, did extraordinarily creative experiments on chicken eggs to understand how skeletal structure of limbs forms and uncovered some of the key mechanisms that build limbs that have the same architecture but are as different as bird wings, lizards webbings, and human hands . They discovered that two little patches of tissue essentially control the development of the pattern of bones inside limbs. These patches of tissue were named the zone of polarizing activity (ZPA). The cells in the ZPA made special molecules that then spread across the limb to instruct cells to make femur, articulates, and connecting toes. The concentration of these molecules was the important factor and decided the length of femur, articulates, connecting toes, and even the length of individual toe fingers. Later experiments with other animals such as the bat, frog, etc. proved that the mechanism to form limbs remained the same - formation of limbs in every creature was controlled by the ZPA – just the concentration of these special molecules varied corresponding to the desired structure.

The reason for this inherent commonality in architecture still remained a conundrum for decades. Why did nature not develop architectures better optimized to the functional needs of various organisms?  The discovery of Tiktaalik, a transition between non-tetrapod vertebrates ("fish") to early tetrapods solved this mystery, providing evidence that all land based creatures that have limbs, hands, etc. share a common ancestor. The fact that our DNA and that of all land based animals can be traced back to Tiktaalik further provided evidence that all appendages, whether they are hands or limbs, are built by similar kinds of genes and that this great evolutionary transformation did not involve the origin of new DNA: much of the shift likely involved using ancient genes, such as those involved in development of Tiktaalik’s limbs, in new ways to make wings in birds or various sized limbs with fingers and toes, explaining the diversity in shapes while maintaining the similarity in architecture.

The primary purpose of the passage is