Passage adapted from The Confidence-Man: His Masquerade by Herman Melville (1857)

At sunrise on a first of April, there appeared suddenly a man in cream-colors at the water-side in the city of St. Louis.

His cheek was fair, his chin downy, his hair flaxen, his hat a white fur one, with a long fleecy nap. He had neither trunk, valise, carpet-bag, nor parcel. No porter followed him. He was unaccompanied by friends. From the shrugged shoulders, titters, whispers, wonderings of the crowd, it was plain that he was, in the extremest sense of the word, a stranger.

In the same moment with his advent, he stepped aboard the favorite steamer Fidèle, on the point of starting for New Orleans. Stared at, but unsaluted, with the air of one neither courting nor shunning regard, but evenly pursuing the path of duty, lead it through solitudes or cities, he held on his way along the lower deck until he chanced to come to a placard nigh the captain's office, offering a reward for the capture of a mysterious impostor, supposed to have recently arrived from the East; quite an original genius in his vocation, as would appear, though wherein his originality consisted was not clearly given; but what purported to be a careful description of his person followed.

As if it had been a theatre-bill, crowds were gathered about the announcement, and among them certain chevaliers, whose eyes, it was plain, were on the capitals, or, at least, earnestly seeking sight of them from behind intervening coats; but as for their fingers, they were enveloped in some myth; though, during a chance interval, one of these chevaliers somewhat showed his hand in purchasing from another chevalier, ex-officio a peddler of money-belts, one of his popular safe-guards, while another peddler, who was still another versatile chevalier, hawked, in the thick of the throng, the lives of Measan, the bandit of Ohio, Murrel, the pirate of the Mississippi, and the brothers Harpe, the Thugs of the Green River country, in Kentucky—creatures, with others of the sort, one and all exterminated at the time, and for the most part, like the hunted generations of wolves in the same regions, leaving comparatively few successors; which would seem cause for unalloyed gratulation, and is such to all except those who think that in new countries, where the wolves are killed off, the foxes increase.

Pausing at this spot, the stranger so far succeeded in threading his way, as at last to plant himself just beside the placard, when, producing a small slate and tracing some words upon if, he held it up before him on a level with the placard, so that they who read the one might read the other. The words were these:—

"Charity thinketh no evil.”

What is the best evidence of the path of the steamship, as assessed in the previous question?

Passage adapted from The Confidence-Man: His Masquerade by Herman Melville (1857)

At sunrise on a first of April, there appeared suddenly a man in cream-colors at the water-side in the city of St. Louis.

His cheek was fair, his chin downy, his hair flaxen, his hat a white fur one, with a long fleecy nap. He had neither trunk, valise, carpet-bag, nor parcel. No porter followed him. He was unaccompanied by friends. From the shrugged shoulders, titters, whispers, wonderings of the crowd, it was plain that he was, in the extremest sense of the word, a stranger.

In the same moment with his advent, he stepped aboard the favorite steamer Fidèle, on the point of starting for New Orleans. Stared at, but unsaluted, with the air of one neither courting nor shunning regard, but evenly pursuing the path of duty, lead it through solitudes or cities, he held on his way along the lower deck until he chanced to come to a placard nigh the captain's office, offering a reward for the capture of a mysterious impostor, supposed to have recently arrived from the East; quite an original genius in his vocation, as would appear, though wherein his originality consisted was not clearly given; but what purported to be a careful description of his person followed.

As if it had been a theatre-bill, crowds were gathered about the announcement, and among them certain chevaliers, whose eyes, it was plain, were on the capitals, or, at least, earnestly seeking sight of them from behind intervening coats; but as for their fingers, they were enveloped in some myth; though, during a chance interval, one of these chevaliers somewhat showed his hand in purchasing from another chevalier, ex-officio a peddler of money-belts, one of his popular safe-guards, while another peddler, who was still another versatile chevalier, hawked, in the thick of the throng, the lives of Measan, the bandit of Ohio, Murrel, the pirate of the Mississippi, and the brothers Harpe, the Thugs of the Green River country, in Kentucky—creatures, with others of the sort, one and all exterminated at the time, and for the most part, like the hunted generations of wolves in the same regions, leaving comparatively few successors; which would seem cause for unalloyed gratulation, and is such to all except those who think that in new countries, where the wolves are killed off, the foxes increase.

Pausing at this spot, the stranger so far succeeded in threading his way, as at last to plant himself just beside the placard, when, producing a small slate and tracing some words upon if, he held it up before him on a level with the placard, so that they who read the one might read the other. The words were these:—

"Charity thinketh no evil.”

What is the author implying in his discussion of wolves and foxes at the end of the third paragraph?

Passage adapted from The Confidence-Man: His Masquerade by Herman Melville (1857)

At sunrise on a first of April, there appeared suddenly a man in cream-colors at the water-side in the city of St. Louis.

His cheek was fair, his chin downy, his hair flaxen, his hat a white fur one, with a long fleecy nap. He had neither trunk, valise, carpet-bag, nor parcel. No porter followed him. He was unaccompanied by friends. From the shrugged shoulders, titters, whispers, wonderings of the crowd, it was plain that he was, in the extremest sense of the word, a stranger.

In the same moment with his advent, he stepped aboard the favorite steamer Fidèle, on the point of starting for New Orleans. Stared at, but unsaluted, with the air of one neither courting nor shunning regard, but evenly pursuing the path of duty, lead it through solitudes or cities, he held on his way along the lower deck until he chanced to come to a placard nigh the captain's office, offering a reward for the capture of a mysterious impostor, supposed to have recently arrived from the East; quite an original genius in his vocation, as would appear, though wherein his originality consisted was not clearly given; but what purported to be a careful description of his person followed.

As if it had been a theatre-bill, crowds were gathered about the announcement, and among them certain chevaliers, whose eyes, it was plain, were on the capitals, or, at least, earnestly seeking sight of them from behind intervening coats; but as for their fingers, they were enveloped in some myth; though, during a chance interval, one of these chevaliers somewhat showed his hand in purchasing from another chevalier, ex-officio a peddler of money-belts, one of his popular safe-guards, while another peddler, who was still another versatile chevalier, hawked, in the thick of the throng, the lives of Measan, the bandit of Ohio, Murrel, the pirate of the Mississippi, and the brothers Harpe, the Thugs of the Green River country, in Kentucky—creatures, with others of the sort, one and all exterminated at the time, and for the most part, like the hunted generations of wolves in the same regions, leaving comparatively few successors; which would seem cause for unalloyed gratulation, and is such to all except those who think that in new countries, where the wolves are killed off, the foxes increase.

Pausing at this spot, the stranger so far succeeded in threading his way, as at last to plant himself just beside the placard, when, producing a small slate and tracing some words upon if, he held it up before him on a level with the placard, so that they who read the one might read the other. The words were these:—

"Charity thinketh no evil.”

When the author uses the phrase “unalloyed gratulation,” underlined in the third paragraph, he means __________.

Passage adapted from The Confidence-Man: His Masquerade by Herman Melville (1857)

At sunrise on a first of April, there appeared suddenly a man in cream-colors at the water-side in the city of St. Louis.

His cheek was fair, his chin downy, his hair flaxen, his hat a white fur one, with a long fleecy nap. He had neither trunk, valise, carpet-bag, nor parcel. No porter followed him. He was unaccompanied by friends. From the shrugged shoulders, titters, whispers, wonderings of the crowd, it was plain that he was, in the extremest sense of the word, a stranger.

In the same moment with his advent, he stepped aboard the favorite steamer Fidèle, on the point of starting for New Orleans. Stared at, but unsaluted, with the air of one neither courting nor shunning regard, but evenly pursuing the path of duty, lead it through solitudes or cities, he held on his way along the lower deck until he chanced to come to a placard nigh the captain's office, offering a reward for the capture of a mysterious impostor, supposed to have recently arrived from the East; quite an original genius in his vocation, as would appear, though wherein his originality consisted was not clearly given; but what purported to be a careful description of his person followed.

As if it had been a theatre-bill, crowds were gathered about the announcement, and among them certain chevaliers, whose eyes, it was plain, were on the capitals, or, at least, earnestly seeking sight of them from behind intervening coats; but as for their fingers, they were enveloped in some myth; though, during a chance interval, one of these chevaliers somewhat showed his hand in purchasing from another chevalier, ex-officio a peddler of money-belts, one of his popular safe-guards, while another peddler, who was still another versatile chevalier, hawked, in the thick of the throng, the lives of Measan, the bandit of Ohio, Murrel, the pirate of the Mississippi, and the brothers Harpe, the Thugs of the Green River country, in Kentucky—creatures, with others of the sort, one and all exterminated at the time, and for the most part, like the hunted generations of wolves in the same regions, leaving comparatively few successors; which would seem cause for unalloyed gratulation, and is such to all except those who think that in new countries, where the wolves are killed off, the foxes increase.

Pausing at this spot, the stranger so far succeeded in threading his way, as at last to plant himself just beside the placard, when, producing a small slate and tracing some words upon if, he held it up before him on a level with the placard, so that they who read the one might read the other. The words were these:—

"Charity thinketh no evil.”

In context, the underlined word "plain" means __________________.

Network theorists attempt to illustrate the social situation of individuals through the observation of their relationships with other people. They note relationships that individuals have with one another and use statistical measures in order to visualize them. Network analysts describe the relationships between individuals and use this information in order to make inferences and conclusions pertaining to the group based upon its observed dynamics. 

There has been debate over the importance of weak and strong ties in regard to an individual’s social situation. Network theorists have described a tie as a relationship between individuals that is characterized by four main components: time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services (i.e. “if you scratch my back, then I’ll scratch yours”). In network sociology, a weak tie is defined as local bridges between two disparate social groups. Some sociologists have argued that weak ties have a greater impact on an individual’s social capital because they are exposed to a group of individuals that are not part of their immediate social network. On the other hand, network theorists have argued that the importance of strong ties has been largely ignored. Sociologists have argued that these tight in-group relations between individuals of social groups are imperative for the transmission of information.

This theory was studied by observing employees in Silicon Valley that were attempting to unionize. Network theorists had individuals in the company write down two names: the name of the person they get advice from (i.e. a weak tie) and the person they consider as a friend (i.e. strong tie). The theorists attempted to understand the differences between whom individuals interact with at work and whom they choose to spend time with outside of the company’s walls. This distinction illustrates the difference between weak and strong ties—that is advice networks at work and friendship networks that extended beyond the physical space of the corporation. Using this information, the researchers were able to create network sociograms that depicted both the friendship and advisory networks of the company.

While sociologists were investigating this information, they were able to observe and apply their data to an attempt to unionize at the company. This group of employees’ attempt to unionize failed and the sociologists were able to use their network data to explain this phenomenon. They concluded that the unionization attempt failed because, while the individuals that were spearheading it were influential in the advice network, they lacked the strong ties in the friends network necessary to form the union. Specifically they did not have ties to influential members of the corporation (i.e. bosses and members of the board). Without the support of influential strong ties in their immediate social networks these individuals were unable to properly form a union. In other words, weak ties in the advisory network introduced them to individuals of power; however, their inability to form strong, friendship bonds with them detrimentally affected their attempts to form a union. 

What is the main idea of this passage?

Network theorists attempt to illustrate the social situation of individuals through the observation of their relationships with other people. They note relationships that individuals have with one another and use statistical measures in order to visualize them. Network analysts describe the relationships between individuals and use this information in order to make inferences and conclusions pertaining to the group based upon its observed dynamics. 

There has been debate over the importance of weak and strong ties in regard to an individual’s social situation. Network theorists have described a tie as a relationship between individuals that is characterized by four main components: time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services (i.e. “if you scratch my back, then I’ll scratch yours”). In network sociology, a weak tie is defined as local bridges between two disparate social groups. Some sociologists have argued that weak ties have a greater impact on an individual’s social capital because they are exposed to a group of individuals that are not part of their immediate social network. On the other hand, network theorists have argued that the importance of strong ties has been largely ignored. Sociologists have argued that these tight in-group relations between individuals of social groups are imperative for the transmission of information.

This theory was studied by observing employees in Silicon Valley that were attempting to unionize. Network theorists had individuals in the company write down two names: the name of the person they get advice from (i.e. a weak tie) and the person they consider as a friend (i.e. strong tie). The theorists attempted to understand the differences between whom individuals interact with at work and whom they choose to spend time with outside of the company’s walls. This distinction illustrates the difference between weak and strong ties—that is advice networks at work and friendship networks that extended beyond the physical space of the corporation. Using this information, the researchers were able to create network sociograms that depicted both the friendship and advisory networks of the company.

While sociologists were investigating this information, they were able to observe and apply their data to an attempt to unionize at the company. This group of employees’ attempt to unionize failed and the sociologists were able to use their network data to explain this phenomenon. They concluded that the unionization attempt failed because, while the individuals that were spearheading it were influential in the advice network, they lacked the strong ties in the friends network necessary to form the union. Specifically they did not have ties to influential members of the corporation (i.e. bosses and members of the board). Without the support of influential strong ties in their immediate social networks these individuals were unable to properly form a union. In other words, weak ties in the advisory network introduced them to individuals of power; however, their inability to form strong, friendship bonds with them detrimentally affected their attempts to form a union. 

The researchers had individuals name their __________ and __________. 

Network theorists attempt to illustrate the social situation of individuals through the observation of their relationships with other people. They note relationships that individuals have with one another and use statistical measures in order to visualize them. Network analysts describe the relationships between individuals and use this information in order to make inferences and conclusions pertaining to the group based upon its observed dynamics. 

There has been debate over the importance of weak and strong ties in regard to an individual’s social situation. Network theorists have described a tie as a relationship between individuals that is characterized by four main components: time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services (i.e. “if you scratch my back, then I’ll scratch yours”). In network sociology, a weak tie is defined as local bridges between two disparate social groups. Some sociologists have argued that weak ties have a greater impact on an individual’s social capital because they are exposed to a group of individuals that are not part of their immediate social network. On the other hand, network theorists have argued that the importance of strong ties has been largely ignored. Sociologists have argued that these tight in-group relations between individuals of social groups are imperative for the transmission of information.

This theory was studied by observing employees in Silicon Valley that were attempting to unionize. Network theorists had individuals in the company write down two names: the name of the person they get advice from (i.e. a weak tie) and the person they consider as a friend (i.e. strong tie). The theorists attempted to understand the differences between whom individuals interact with at work and whom they choose to spend time with outside of the company’s walls. This distinction illustrates the difference between weak and strong ties—that is advice networks at work and friendship networks that extended beyond the physical space of the corporation. Using this information, the researchers were able to create network sociograms that depicted both the friendship and advisory networks of the company.

While sociologists were investigating this information, they were able to observe and apply their data to an attempt to unionize at the company. This group of employees’ attempt to unionize failed and the sociologists were able to use their network data to explain this phenomenon. They concluded that the unionization attempt failed because, while the individuals that were spearheading it were influential in the advice network, they lacked the strong ties in the friends network necessary to form the union. Specifically they did not have ties to influential members of the corporation (i.e. bosses and members of the board). Without the support of influential strong ties in their immediate social networks these individuals were unable to properly form a union. In other words, weak ties in the advisory network introduced them to individuals of power; however, their inability to form strong, friendship bonds with them detrimentally affected their attempts to form a union. 

In context, the underlined word "disparate" means __________.

Network theorists attempt to illustrate the social situation of individuals through the observation of their relationships with other people. They note relationships that individuals have with one another and use statistical measures in order to visualize them. Network analysts describe the relationships between individuals and use this information in order to make inferences and conclusions pertaining to the group based upon its observed dynamics. 

There has been debate over the importance of weak and strong ties in regard to an individual’s social situation. Network theorists have described a tie as a relationship between individuals that is characterized by four main components: time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services (i.e. “if you scratch my back, then I’ll scratch yours”). In network sociology, a weak tie is defined as local bridges between two disparate social groups. Some sociologists have argued that weak ties have a greater impact on an individual’s social capital because they are exposed to a group of individuals that are not part of their immediate social network. On the other hand, network theorists have argued that the importance of strong ties has been largely ignored. Sociologists have argued that these tight in-group relations between individuals of social groups are imperative for the transmission of information.

This theory was studied by observing employees in Silicon Valley that were attempting to unionize. Network theorists had individuals in the company write down two names: the name of the person they get advice from (i.e. a weak tie) and the person they consider as a friend (i.e. strong tie). The theorists attempted to understand the differences between whom individuals interact with at work and whom they choose to spend time with outside of the company’s walls. This distinction illustrates the difference between weak and strong ties—that is advice networks at work and friendship networks that extended beyond the physical space of the corporation. Using this information, the researchers were able to create network sociograms that depicted both the friendship and advisory networks of the company.

While sociologists were investigating this information, they were able to observe and apply their data to an attempt to unionize at the company. This group of employees’ attempt to unionize failed and the sociologists were able to use their network data to explain this phenomenon. They concluded that the unionization attempt failed because, while the individuals that were spearheading it were influential in the advice network, they lacked the strong ties in the friends network necessary to form the union. Specifically they did not have ties to influential members of the corporation (i.e. bosses and members of the board). Without the support of influential strong ties in their immediate social networks these individuals were unable to properly form a union. In other words, weak ties in the advisory network introduced them to individuals of power; however, their inability to form strong, friendship bonds with them detrimentally affected their attempts to form a union. 

Which of the following best summarizes the fourth paragraph of the passage?

Network theorists attempt to illustrate the social situation of individuals through the observation of their relationships with other people. They note relationships that individuals have with one another and use statistical measures in order to visualize them. Network analysts describe the relationships between individuals and use this information in order to make inferences and conclusions pertaining to the group based upon its observed dynamics. 

There has been debate over the importance of weak and strong ties in regard to an individual’s social situation. Network theorists have described a tie as a relationship between individuals that is characterized by four main components: time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services (i.e. “if you scratch my back, then I’ll scratch yours”). In network sociology, a weak tie is defined as local bridges between two disparate social groups. Some sociologists have argued that weak ties have a greater impact on an individual’s social capital because they are exposed to a group of individuals that are not part of their immediate social network. On the other hand, network theorists have argued that the importance of strong ties has been largely ignored. Sociologists have argued that these tight in-group relations between individuals of social groups are imperative for the transmission of information.

This theory was studied by observing employees in Silicon Valley that were attempting to unionize. Network theorists had individuals in the company write down two names: the name of the person they get advice from (i.e. a weak tie) and the person they consider as a friend (i.e. strong tie). The theorists attempted to understand the differences between whom individuals interact with at work and whom they choose to spend time with outside of the company’s walls. This distinction illustrates the difference between weak and strong ties—that is advice networks at work and friendship networks that extended beyond the physical space of the corporation. Using this information, the researchers were able to create network sociograms that depicted both the friendship and advisory networks of the company.

While sociologists were investigating this information, they were able to observe and apply their data to an attempt to unionize at the company. This group of employees’ attempt to unionize failed and the sociologists were able to use their network data to explain this phenomenon. They concluded that the unionization attempt failed because, while the individuals that were spearheading it were influential in the advice network, they lacked the strong ties in the friends network necessary to form the union. Specifically they did not have ties to influential members of the corporation (i.e. bosses and members of the board). Without the support of influential strong ties in their immediate social networks these individuals were unable to properly form a union. In other words, weak ties in the advisory network introduced them to individuals of power; however, their inability to form strong, friendship bonds with them detrimentally affected their attempts to form a union. 

Network theorists attempt to illustrate the social situation of individuals through the observation of their relationships with other people. They note relationships that individuals have with one another and use statistical measures in order to visualize them. Network analysts describe the relationships between individuals and use this information in order to make inferences and conclusions pertaining to the group based upon its observed dynamics. 

There has been debate over the importance of weak and strong ties in regard to an individual’s social situation. Network theorists have described a tie as a relationship between individuals that is characterized by four main components: time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services (i.e. “if you scratch my back, then I’ll scratch yours”). In network sociology, a weak tie is defined as local bridges between two disparate social groups. Some sociologists have argued that weak ties have a greater impact on an individual’s social capital because they are exposed to a group of individuals that are not part of their immediate social network. On the other hand, network theorists have argued that the importance of strong ties has been largely ignored. Sociologists have argued that these tight in-group relations between individuals of social groups are imperative for the transmission of information.

This theory was studied by observing employees in Silicon Valley that were attempting to unionize. Network theorists had individuals in the company write down two names: the name of the person they get advice from (i.e. a weak tie) and the person they consider as a friend (i.e. strong tie). The theorists attempted to understand the differences between whom individuals interact with at work and whom they choose to spend time with outside of the company’s walls. This distinction illustrates the difference between weak and strong ties—that is advice networks at work and friendship networks that extended beyond the physical space of the corporation. Using this information, the researchers were able to create network sociograms that depicted both the friendship and advisory networks of the company.

While sociologists were investigating this information, they were able to observe and apply their data to an attempt to unionize at the company. This group of employees’ attempt to unionize failed and the sociologists were able to use their network data to explain this phenomenon. They concluded that the unionization attempt failed because, while the individuals that were spearheading it were influential in the advice network, they lacked the strong ties in the friends network necessary to form the union. Specifically they did not have ties to influential members of the corporation (i.e. bosses and members of the board). Without the support of influential strong ties in their immediate social networks these individuals were unable to properly form a union. In other words, weak ties in the advisory network introduced them to individuals of power; however, their inability to form strong, friendship bonds with them detrimentally affected their attempts to form a union. 

What is the author implying in his discussion of the tendency of social scientists to overlook the importance of strong ties at the end of the first paragraph?