Question

Why does the author include these sentences in the blog post?

Answer 1

Read the blog post. Then, answer the questions.

Are We Causing Antibiotic Resistance by Trying to Prevent It?
by Beth Skwarecki
1 You fill a prescription for antibiotics, and have 14 days worth of pills in your hand. Pop quiz: If you want to be a good citizen and prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance, how many of those pills should you take?

2 The sticker on the bottle is clear: all of them. In India, where Andrew Read studies infectious disease, resistance is so prevalent that standard malaria treatment includes not just the pills, but a boy who comes to your home each day to check that you've taken your dose. And yet, Read believes that aggressive treatment with antibiotics is increasing the spread of resistance, not controlling it.

3 To be clear, nobody is saying patients should decide their own dose. But there is a good argument to be made that the public health message about antibiotics, which is consistent worldwide for many diseases and drugs, deserves a second look.

4 I first heard about this idea in a talk Read gave at an evolutionary medicine conference in Palo Alto. He addressed one of those nagging questions I always had: if you have antibiotic-resistant pathogens in you, wouldn't they survive antibiotic treatment no matter how long the course?

5 The answer is yes, at least sometimes. It's true that some resistance is low-level, so you can kill off those bugs if you use enough medicine; sometimes the higher level resistance requires several mutations, so the sooner you can kill off your pathogens, the less likely they will find the magic combo of mutations that will let them completely evade the drug. But what if a high-level resistance mutation is already present?

6 Don't think that's so far-fetched: since most antibiotic drugs come from naturally occurring toxins, there have probably always been resistance genes. Researchers have found them in bacteria that have never been exposed to drugs, like in this 4-million-year-old cave. Friendly gut bacteria can be a reservoir for resistance genes, even years after the last antibiotic dose; and Read points out that among the 1012 individual malaria parasites in an infected person, the odds are that every possible point mutation is already present.

7 (By the way, we're not just talking antibiotics for bacteria; the same issues apply to antimicrobials that target fungi, or protists such as malaria, and even insecticides and cancer drugs.)

Germ-on-germ battles

8 We talk of "fighting disease" as if it's the patient vs. the germ, but there is a germ-on-germ battle too: the resistant microbes vs. others. The others may be susceptible strains of the same bug, or even commensals like your friendly gut flora. In dosing with an antibiotic, you tip the scales toward the resistant ones, so they can outcompete their antibiotic-sensitive peers. While an aggressive dose can make resistance mutations less likely to happen (good), it has a flip side of boosting the success of any resistant bugs that survive (bad).

9 Those resistant bugs may be few and far between, but it turns out that rare mutations benefit the most when drugs kill off their competitors. Read's team showed, with a mouse model of malaria, that the susceptible strains win out over the resistant strains in the absence of antibiotics; after treatment, though, the resistant ones bounce back faster and in greater numbers. The boost was biggest for mutants that were rare to begin with.

10 This isn't just a problem for the individual with the infection; it affects transmission rates. If you're the patient with the newly-boosted resistance mutation, when the next mosquito bites you, she's going to get a mouthful of resistant bugs, rather than the susceptible ones. The next person she bites will show up to the clinic infected with a strain that's hard to kill off.

11 Then there's that huge reservoir of (hopefully) susceptible bacteria that you can't totally kill off, and don't want to: your normal flora.

12 Treating your body with antibiotics (regardless of what bugs were present—possibly none if your prescription was one of the 40% for respiratory infections that aren't bacterial) exposes your gut bacteria to antibiotics and increases selection for antibiotic-resistant versions of those. No biggie—until one of them transfers that gene to a pathogen you do care about. The vancomycin resistance gene in VRSA (MRSA's scarier cousin) apparently came from E. faecalis—you guessed it, gut bacteria.

13 Fortunately in VRSA's case, resistant bugs often take a hit when it comes to competing outside of the influence of the drug. That's why it never took off in the community like MRSA did (we think).

How to best use the drugs we have

14 New drugs are potentially a useful weapon in the fight against resistance, but the drugs often just aren't available—leaving aside the question of whether an unlimited supply of drugs is just waiting to be discovered, there is the problem that drug companies aren't interested in a drug that, with widespread use, could be obsolete long before it's turned a profit; or a drug that is so good that it's saved as a last line of defense. The few new antibiotics, Gary Taubes reports, are minor tweaks to old drugs, or have toxic side effects; some classes of bacteria aren't getting new antibiotics at all.

15 So if our antibiotic use strategy is actually encouraging resistance, what should we do instead? Many guidelines still stand, like preventing disease transmission in the first place (think hand washing) and eliminating antibiotic use where it's not necessary: viral infections, for example, and use in livestock. When it comes to treating an individual patient, though, aggressive antibiotic use (finishing all your medication) may make that person feel better but ultimately pass the risk on to the community.

16 One suggestion, supported by Read and others, is this: rather than killing off all the pathogens, we could help the immune system with the smallest dose possible. That would reduce the microbes' numbers temporarily so the patient's natural defenses can do their job. (The immune system seems to be equally effective against antibiotic-resistant and sensitive bugs.) This could mean pulses of treatment, or even the heretical advice to take the drugs until you feel better, then stop. Of course, you may need them again later on.

17 Evidence shows that many infections clear with less than a typical course of antibiotics, which is good since the longer the course, the more chances bugs get to develop resistance. Richard Everts identifies several infections where short courses are effective; they include (depending on the exact drug and dose) UTIs, bacterial meningitis, strep throat, and others. The short courses he reviewed were often along the lines of 3 days; for gonorrhea, a single dose was effective. He concludes that symptoms should guide the length of treatment, except for particular diseases where symptoms don't reflect the true pathogen load. Quoted in the Taubes article, Louis B. Rice argues that long courses of antibiotics benefit the physician's peace of mind more than the patient or public health.

18 Back to those pills in your hand: the evidence isn't strong enough, yet, for anyone to feel comfortable telling your pharmacist to trash the sticker. Read et al also consider the idea that the right drug regimen may change over time: aggressive treatment with fresh drugs, then shorter pulses of treatment once resistance develops. This means that different drugs would have different dosing regimens, subject to change. If that's the case, public health officials will need to consider the spread of information as well as the spread of resistance genes. They write: "Such a switch may be difficult in practice. Health messaging may require constancy, or it may be that by the time unambiguous evidence of high-level resistance has been obtained and policy changed, it is already too late."

19 Do you think we could realistically change the public health message about antibiotics? Would it be too confusing if the rule was different for different drug/pathogen combinations?

"Are We Causing Antibiotic Resistance by Trying to Prevent It?" by Beth Skwarecki, © 2012.

Part A: Read these sentences from paragraphs 1 and 2.

Pop quiz: If you want to be a good citizen and prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance, how many of those pills should you take? The sticker on the bottle is clear: all of them.

Why does the author include these sentences in the blog post?

A. to establish a tone that indicates the seriousness of the issue


B. to question people's ability to treat their own infections


C. to describe a common practice that is being called into question


D. to introduce a scientist's research hypothesis

Answer 2

@SmokeyBrown

Answer 3

I think B, to call into question a common practice that is being called into question. That sentence sets up the blogger's argument through the rest of the post

Answer 4

Part B

Which two pieces of evidence from the blog post support the answer to Part A?

A. "In India, where Andrew Read studies infectious disease, resistance is so prevalent that standard malaria treatment includes not just the pills, but a boy who comes to your home each day to check that you've taken your dose." (paragraph 2)


B. "But there is a good argument to be made that the public health message about antibiotics, which is consistent worldwide for many diseases and drugs, deserves a second look." (paragraph 3)


C. "If you're the patient with the newly-boosted resistance mutation, when the next mosquito bites you, she's going to get a mouthful of resistant bugs, rather than the susceptible ones." (paragraph 10)


D. "Many guidelines still stand, like preventing disease transmission in the first place (think hand washing) and eliminating antibiotic use where it's not necessary: viral infections, for example, and use in livestock." (paragraph 15)


E. "Evidence shows that many infections clear with less than a typical course of antibiotics, which is good since the longer the course, the more chances bugs get to develop resistance." (paragraph 17)


F. "Back to those pills in your hand: the evidence isn't strong enough, yet, for anyone to feel comfortable telling your pharmacist to trash the sticker." (paragraph 18)

Answer 5

I think B and C, since they both give reasons for why the standard accepted use of antibiotics might cause problems

Answer 6

Read the blog post. Then, answer the questions.

Are We Causing Antibiotic Resistance by Trying to Prevent It?
by Beth Skwarecki
1 You fill a prescription for antibiotics, and have 14 days worth of pills in your hand. Pop quiz: If you want to be a good citizen and prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance, how many of those pills should you take?

2 The sticker on the bottle is clear: all of them. In India, where Andrew Read studies infectious disease, resistance is so prevalent that standard malaria treatment includes not just the pills, but a boy who comes to your home each day to check that you've taken your dose. And yet, Read believes that aggressive treatment with antibiotics is increasing the spread of resistance, not controlling it.

3 To be clear, nobody is saying patients should decide their own dose. But there is a good argument to be made that the public health message about antibiotics, which is consistent worldwide for many diseases and drugs, deserves a second look.

4 I first heard about this idea in a talk Read gave at an evolutionary medicine conference in Palo Alto. He addressed one of those nagging questions I always had: if you have antibiotic-resistant pathogens in you, wouldn't they survive antibiotic treatment no matter how long the course?

5 The answer is yes, at least sometimes. It's true that some resistance is low-level, so you can kill off those bugs if you use enough medicine; sometimes the higher level resistance requires several mutations, so the sooner you can kill off your pathogens, the less likely they will find the magic combo of mutations that will let them completely evade the drug. But what if a high-level resistance mutation is already present?

6 Don't think that's so far-fetched: since most antibiotic drugs come from naturally occurring toxins, there have probably always been resistance genes. Researchers have found them in bacteria that have never been exposed to drugs, like in this 4-million-year-old cave. Friendly gut bacteria can be a reservoir for resistance genes, even years after the last antibiotic dose; and Read points out that among the 1012 individual malaria parasites in an infected person, the odds are that every possible point mutation is already present.

7 (By the way, we're not just talking antibiotics for bacteria; the same issues apply to antimicrobials that target fungi, or protists such as malaria, and even insecticides and cancer drugs.)

Germ-on-germ battles

8 We talk of "fighting disease" as if it's the patient vs. the germ, but there is a germ-on-germ battle too: the resistant microbes vs. others. The others may be susceptible strains of the same bug, or even commensals like your friendly gut flora. In dosing with an antibiotic, you tip the scales toward the resistant ones, so they can outcompete their antibiotic-sensitive peers. While an aggressive dose can make resistance mutations less likely to happen (good), it has a flip side of boosting the success of any resistant bugs that survive (bad).

9 Those resistant bugs may be few and far between, but it turns out that rare mutations benefit the most when drugs kill off their competitors. Read's team showed, with a mouse model of malaria, that the susceptible strains win out over the resistant strains in the absence of antibiotics; after treatment, though, the resistant ones bounce back faster and in greater numbers. The boost was biggest for mutants that were rare to begin with.

10 This isn't just a problem for the individual with the infection; it affects transmission rates. If you're the patient with the newly-boosted resistance mutation, when the next mosquito bites you, she's going to get a mouthful of resistant bugs, rather than the susceptible ones. The next person she bites will show up to the clinic infected with a strain that's hard to kill off.

11 Then there's that huge reservoir of (hopefully) susceptible bacteria that you can't totally kill off, and don't want to: your normal flora.

12 Treating your body with antibiotics (regardless of what bugs were present—possibly none if your prescription was one of the 40% for respiratory infections that aren't bacterial) exposes your gut bacteria to antibiotics and increases selection for antibiotic-resistant versions of those. No biggie—until one of them transfers that gene to a pathogen you do care about. The vancomycin resistance gene in VRSA (MRSA's scarier cousin) apparently came from E. faecalis—you guessed it, gut bacteria.

13 Fortunately in VRSA's case, resistant bugs often take a hit when it comes to competing outside of the influence of the drug. That's why it never took off in the community like MRSA did (we think).

How to best use the drugs we have

14 New drugs are potentially a useful weapon in the fight against resistance, but the drugs often just aren't available—leaving aside the question of whether an unlimited supply of drugs is just waiting to be discovered, there is the problem that drug companies aren't interested in a drug that, with widespread use, could be obsolete long before it's turned a profit; or a drug that is so good that it's saved as a last line of defense. The few new antibiotics, Gary Taubes reports, are minor tweaks to old drugs, or have toxic side effects; some classes of bacteria aren't getting new antibiotics at all.

15 So if our antibiotic use strategy is actually encouraging resistance, what should we do instead? Many guidelines still stand, like preventing disease transmission in the first place (think hand washing) and eliminating antibiotic use where it's not necessary: viral infections, for example, and use in livestock. When it comes to treating an individual patient, though, aggressive antibiotic use (finishing all your medication) may make that person feel better but ultimately pass the risk on to the community.

16 One suggestion, supported by Read and others, is this: rather than killing off all the pathogens, we could help the immune system with the smallest dose possible. That would reduce the microbes' numbers temporarily so the patient's natural defenses can do their job. (The immune system seems to be equally effective against antibiotic-resistant and sensitive bugs.) This could mean pulses of treatment, or even the heretical advice to take the drugs until you feel better, then stop. Of course, you may need them again later on.

17 Evidence shows that many infections clear with less than a typical course of antibiotics, which is good since the longer the course, the more chances bugs get to develop resistance. Richard Everts identifies several infections where short courses are effective; they include (depending on the exact drug and dose) UTIs, bacterial meningitis, strep throat, and others. The short courses he reviewed were often along the lines of 3 days; for gonorrhea, a single dose was effective. He concludes that symptoms should guide the length of treatment, except for particular diseases where symptoms don't reflect the true pathogen load. Quoted in the Taubes article, Louis B. Rice argues that long courses of antibiotics benefit the physician's peace of mind more than the patient or public health.

18 Back to those pills in your hand: the evidence isn't strong enough, yet, for anyone to feel comfortable telling your pharmacist to trash the sticker. Read et al also consider the idea that the right drug regimen may change over time: aggressive treatment with fresh drugs, then shorter pulses of treatment once resistance develops. This means that different drugs would have different dosing regimens, subject to change. If that's the case, public health officials will need to consider the spread of information as well as the spread of resistance genes. They write: "Such a switch may be difficult in practice. Health messaging may require constancy, or it may be that by the time unambiguous evidence of high-level resistance has been obtained and policy changed, it is already too late."

19 Do you think we could realistically change the public health message about antibiotics? Would it be too confusing if the rule was different for different drug/pathogen combinations?

"Are We Causing Antibiotic Resistance by Trying to Prevent It?" by Beth Skwarecki, © 2012.

Part A

What is the author's purpose for including the explanation in paragraph 6?

A. to illustrate that some resistance genes may occur naturally


B. to show that antibiotics are needlessly prescribed for nonbacterial infections


C. to highlight that gut bacteria can fight off infections just as well as antibiotics


D. to emphasize that people have overcome infections for millions of years without antibiotics

Answer 7

Paragraph 6 is all about how bacteria can be naturally resistant to antibiotics, so I think A would be the best answer

Answer 8

Part B

Which piece of evidence from the blog post best supports the answer to Part A?

A. "But what if a high-level resistance mutation is already present?" (paragraph 5)


B. "Researchers have found them in bacteria that have never been exposed to drugs, like in this 4-million-year-old cave." (paragraph 6)


C. "(By the way, we're not just talking antibiotics for bacteria; the same issues apply to antimicrobials that target fungi, or protists such as malaria, and even insecticides and cancer drugs.)" (paragraph 7)


D. "We talk of 'fighting disease' as if it's the patient vs. the germ, but there is a germ-on-germ battle too: the resistant microbes vs. others." (paragraph 8)

Answer 9

Probably B, since that one is about resistant genes being present in bacteria that have never been exposed to antibiotics

Answer 10

Which statement sums up the main hypothesis in the first section of the blog post (paragraphs 1-7)?

A. More antibiotic intervention is needed in some countries.


B. People should follow the doctor's orders when taking antibiotics.


C. The standard treatment of malaria in India is no longer effective.


D. Treating illnesses with antibiotics is increasing the spread of resistance.

Answer 11

I think D, most likely. The first seven paragraphs describe how overusing antibiotics can lead to bacteria developing resistance against those types of treatments

Answer 12

Read the poem.

Dulce et Decorum Est
by Wilfred Owen

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! Gas! Quick boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime —
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et Decorum Est
Pro patria mori.

What statement best explains the impact of the phrase “All went lame; all blind” in Stanza 1 of the poem?

A. It shows that all of humanity is impacted by war.

B. It conveys the emotional reactions of the soldiers.

C. It places the blame for the attack on an unseen enemy.

D. It suggests that no soldier escapes the hell of war.

Answer 13

Since the poem specifically describes the horrors that soldiers face in war, I think D would be the best choice

Answer 14

Read the poem.

There Will Come Soft Rains
by Sara Teasdale

There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground,
And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;

And frogs in the pools singing at night,
And wild-plum trees in tremulous white;

Robins will wear their feathery fire
Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;

And not one will know of the war, not one
Will care at last when it is done.

Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree,
If mankind perished utterly;

And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn,
Would scarcely know that we were gone.

Reread these lines from the poem:

And frogs in the pools singing at night,
And wild-plum trees in tremulous white;

Which statement best describes the effect of figurative language on the tone of the poem?

A. The use of descriptive language such as "tremulous white" creates an angry tone.

B. The imagery of the frogs singing at night creates a fearful tone.

C. The use of descriptive language such as "wild-plum trees" creates a desolate tone.

D. The imagery of the animals and trees provides a soothing tone.

Answer 15

I get the sense that C is the correct answer, but I could see an argument for D as well. All in all, I see the tone of the poem as more "desolate" than "soothing" so I'd go with C.

Answer 16

In John McCrae's poem "In Flanders Fields," the dead bodies of soldiers are personified as if they are still alive—able to speak to the reader and pass a torch, and trying to sleep.

What effect does this personification have on the poem?


A. It makes the reader feel intimate with the dead soldiers and able to understand them.

B. It implies that war isn't so bad because the soldiers aren't really dead.

C. It creates a frightening mood, for the dead soldiers may suddenly come to life.

D. It injects religious themes having to do with the afterlife into the poem.

Answer 17

is it A

Answer 18

Yeah, that sounds right to me

Answer 19

Read these lines from "War is Kind" by Stephen Crane.

Hoarse, booming drums of the regiment,
Little souls who thirst for fight,
These men were born to drill and die.

How do these lines evoke a sense of the time and place in which this poem is set?


A. The use of the word hoarse indicates that this section of the poem takes place during a war fought at a time when cavalry troops still played a crucial role on the battlefield.

B. The reference to the "booming drums of the regiment" indicates that this section of the poem depicts a battle and takes place during a time when military drums were still used during conflict.

C. The reference to the "little souls" of the soldiers who fight indicates that this section of the poem takes place after a battle has ended and depicts the afterlife as the spirits of the dead ascend to heaven.

D. The use of the word drill indicates that this section of the poem takes place during a twentieth-century war, likely World War I or World War II, and depicts the soldiers using the modern technique of marching in formation.

Answer 20

is it B

Answer 21

Hm, I honestly am having trouble picking any of the answers over the others for this one.

Answer 22

I honestly am having trouble choosing one over the other for this one

Answer 23

mm i don't blame you

Answer 24

i might be B

Answer 25

Read these lines from "Come Up from the Fields Father" by Walt Whitman.

O this is not our son’s writing, yet his name is sign’d,
O a strange hand writes for our dear son, O stricken
mother’s soul!

What impact does alliteration have on these lines?

Select each correct answer.

A. The s sound creates the impression of evil occurring in the midst of a peaceful scene.

B. The repeated sputter of the s sound summons up the sound of the mother exclaiming helplessly about the letter.

C. The way the words echo each other reminds the reader of the echoes of gunfire in war.

D. The similar sounds of the lines help the lines hold together as a unit.

Answer 26

I think B would be correct here. A and B both relate to alliteration, but I think B is more accurate to what the poem is actually describing

Answer 27

DO YOU THINK IT'S B and D

Answer 28

Oh, yeah, if you're allowed to choose more than one, I think D would be right too

Answer 29

NAH I'm suggesting

Answer 30

Well, D sounds pretty general, so I think it would apply if you're looking for multiply answers

Answer 31

i was right

Answer 32

Read the poem.

War is Kind
by Stephen Crane

Do not weep, maiden, for war is kind.
Because your lover threw wild hands toward the sky
And the affrighted steed ran on alone,
Do not weep.
War is kind.

Hoarse, booming drums of the regiment,
Little souls who thirst for fight,
These men were born to drill and die.
The unexplained glory flies above them,
Great is the battle god, great, and his kingdom
A field where a thousand corpses lie.

Do not weep, babe, for war is kind.
Because your father tumbled in the yellow trenches,
Raged at his breast, gulped and died,
Do not weep.
War is kind.

Swift blazing flag of the regiment,
Eagle with crest of red and gold,
These men were born to drill and die.
Point for them the virtue of slaughter,
Make plain to them the excellence of killing
And a field where a thousand corpses lie.

Mother whose heart hung humble as a button
On the bright splendid shroud of your son,
Do not weep.
War is kind.
What is the connotative meaning of the phrase "threw wild hands toward the sky" in Stanza 1?


A. It connotes the surrender the man offers when confronted by death.

B. It connotes the ecstasy and relief the man feels once death arrives.

C. It connotes the helplessness and fear of the man in the face of death.

D. It connotes the great anger the man feels over dying.

Answer 33

I think C, probably? That's the sense I get when I read the passage

Answer 34

Read the poem.

There Will Come Soft Rains
by Sara Teasdale

There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground,
And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;

And frogs in the pools singing at night,
And wild-plum trees in tremulous white;

Robins will wear their feathery fire
Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;

And not one will know of the war, not one
Will care at last when it is done.

Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree,
If mankind perished utterly;

And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn,
Would scarcely know that we were gone.

Reread these lines from the poem:

And frogs in the pools singing at night,
And wild-plum trees in tremulous white;

Which statement best describes the effect of figurative language on the tone of the poem?

A. The imagery of the animals and trees provides a soothing tone.

B. The use of descriptive language such as "wild-plum trees" creates a desolate tone.

C. The use of descriptive language such as "tremulous white" creates an angry tone.

D. The imagery of the frogs singing at night creates a fearful tone.

Answer 35

Did we see this question already? Although, it seems like the answer choices have been switched around. Well, I think B would still be best

Answer 36

In Wilfred Owen's poem "Dulce et Decorum Est," the speaker describes "the hoots of the gas shells," as if the gas shells are human beings capable of calling out.

What effect does this personification have on the description?

A. It creates the feeling that the deadly weapons are mocking their victims.

B. It suggests that the panicking soldiers are hearing things that aren't there.

C. It implies that the gas shells are an advanced type of weapon for their era.

D. It implies that when the soldiers are killed, only the weapons will be alive.

Answer 37

I think A is probably the one for this question. "Hooting" makes me think of mocking, anyway

Answer 38

Read these lines from "Dulce et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen.

Gas! Gas! Quick boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling...

How do these lines evoke a sense of the time and place in which this poem is set?


A. The description of a person "yelling out and stumbling" suggests that this poem takes place in a hospital where soldiers who have returned from battle in the Revolutionary War are dealing with the horrors they faced.

B. The use of the word gas and the phrase "ecstasy of fumbling" reveals that this poem depicts poorly trained World War II soldiers whose vehicle has run out of fuel just as an enemy attack begins.

C. The mention of "helmets" and the use of the modern phrase "just in time" indicates that this poem depicts soldiers fighting in a war that took place after 1950, likely the Vietnam War.

D. The repetition of the word gas, the exclamation "Quick boys," and the reference to "helmets" all help convey that this poem takes place during World War I and describes a chemical weapons attack.

Answer 39

Yeah, definitely D for this one. The "gas" is a chemical weapon, and the helmets are probably gas masks to defend against that

Answer 40

Read these lines from "Come Up from the Fields Father" by Walt Whitman.

...(the just-grown daughter speaks through her sobs,
the little sisters huddle around speechless and dismay'd)...

What impact does alliteration have on these lines?

Select each correct answer.

A. The unity of sound leads to a sense of unity in the lines as they move forward.

B. The sounds of the words create a picture of the dead son in the reader's mind.

C. The gathering of s sounds enhances the picture of the daughters gathered close together.

D. It emphasizes the word speechless as the most important word in the lines.

Answer 41

I think A and maybe C as well?

Answer 42

correct