The most direct information for answering this question is contained in lines 18-28. In the first of two sentences (lines 18-23) the author directly states that the Moon Walk project will require maintaining public profitability and satisfying private needs. You, the reader, add to this direct information what you've learned up to this point about Moon Walk -- that is, it's a waterfront area. The additional notion of success comes in the beginning of the third paragraph (lines 24-28), which lists the various groups who have turned "derelict port landscapes" (paraphrasing for waterfront areas) into "exciting commercial and recreational centers" (i.e., into successes).

The author describes Moon Walk as one of the latest attempts to renew a waterfront area. He also names several other areas that have already been revitalized (lines 29-32). He does not however, suggest that any one particular design has to be followed.

The author does discuss technological changes in transportation that did take place after World War II (lines 37-42). He does not, however, suggest that such changes must take place. This question asks you to identify something that "successful renewal requires..." If you reread what the author says about the changes, you should find that this option is not even logical: the changes caused the waterfront areas to decline, for ports were no longer necessary (lines 37-46). It doesn't make much sense for the cause of the problem to be the solution, and the question directs you to identify a solution, that is, a requirement for successful renewal.

The preservation of historical monuments is a concern included in the area of urban renewal, which is the topic of the last paragraph. Note, however, that the focus of the passage as a whole is renewal of waterfront areas. You can't be sure from the information given how many, if any, historical monuments are located in waterfront areas. The fact that the author doesn't mention monuments suggests that they are not a major concern. Further, since they are not men tioned, preserving them could not be a requirement for successful renewal. Relate the contents of a single paragraph (in this case, the last paragraph) to the meaning of the whole passage. Doing this will prevent you from misinterpreting why an author mentions what he does.

This option describes the status of waterfront areas prior to the time mentioned in the question. See lines 34-37. You may have selected this Incorrect option because you "matched words" in the question (World War II) and option (water-borne commerce) with the words in lines 36-37. Matching words is not reading for meaning.

Waterfront areas became "exciting commercial and recreational centers" (line 28) as part of the urban renewal movement beginning in the 1970's. This option describes the waterfront areas, true, but not in the time period mentioned in the question.

First you have to locate where in the passage the specified time period (from World War II up until the 1970's) is discussed to determine what happened to the waterfronts. See lines 37-49. In lines 37-42 you learned that changes in transportation after World War II caused ports to become out of date ("obsolete") and unnecessary ("peripheral to the life of the city"). This in turn led to decay (lines 44-46). With the 1970's, urban renewal, including waterfront renewal (lines 54-55), ended the decay. Thus, between these two dates, waterfronts were "sites of urban decay."

This option is taken from the last sentence of the passage. Keep in mind, though, that you have to select an answer to the question asked, not merely pick information contained in the passage. This option is Incorrect because it does not describe what happened "between World War II and the 1970's." It describes what happened during the 1970's and after.

"Although" is a conjunction meaning "in spite of the fact that." This phrase does not fit the meaning of the sentence, which describes why waterfronts were once growing, successful areas. This phrase would signal a reason that waterfronts would not prosper.

"As long as" is a conjunction meaning "provided that." For example, an instructor may tell students that they don't have to take the final exam as long as they have an A average on all their other required work. If you reread the sentence (lines 34-37) you see that waterfronts thrived only as long as citizens depended on water transportation for commerce. In other words, the need for goods to be carried by water was a condition (provision) for having prosperous waterfronts. Take away the need, and the port areas were neglected.

"In the meantime" is a transitional device meaning "in the intervening time." In other words, it specifies a time between two points or events -- after x happened but before y took place. Reread the sentence, which describes an ongoing event -- the thriving of waterfronts. Further, this sentence deals with the cause, not with the timing.

"Until" is a conjunction meaning "up to the time that" or a preposition meaning "before." Reread the sentence, inserting these meanings in place of "while." Note that the meaning is changed and that the sentence is now historically Incorrect. The change would mean that waterfronts were prosperous before the need for water-borne transportation.

This meaning does not fit the context of the sentence. You may have chosen it because you were thinking about the fact that goods would be delivered to ports. Notice that the target sentence deals with what caused the ports to become out-of-date and thus in need of restoration.

The sentence establishes a cause-effect relationship: changes in methods of transportation caused ports to become obsolete. The passage contains additional clues in the two sentences that follow, in which the author explains what is meant by "obsolete." The new methods of transportation didn't require water transportation (the cause given in lines 38-41), so waterfronts became unnecessary and lay idle. In other words, the changes made ports obsolete.

This meaning does not fit the context of the sentence. You may have chosen it because you were thinking about the restoration of ports, the overall topic of the passage. Notice that this sentence deals with what caused them to become out-of-date and thus in need of restoration.

This meaning does not fit the context of the sentence. You may have chosen it because of the similarity in spelling between the target word and this option. The two words are not similar in meaning.

Reread the sentence, substituting "technological change" for "this condition." Technological change created the condition (see lines 34-43); the change is not the same as the condition. You may have selected this option because you read too far back in the passage, skipping the nearest reference.

To determine the meaning of this reference you have to "read back" in the text to locate the nearest mention of a condition. No mention is made in the sentence itself in the words that precede "this condition," so you have to go back to the preceding sentence (lines 44-46), which contains the condition "urban decay."

Reread the sentence, substituting "urban pride" for "this condition." The sentence would now read "With the 1970's came a period of reflection on urban pride..." You should see that this doesn't fit the logic of the passage; people weren't reflecting (thinking calmly and quietly) about something good (urban pride) but about a problem. You may have chosen this option because you "read forward," looking ahead in the text for what "this condition" refers to. You should "read forward" only to find a reference when there is no text to "read back." In other words, if the sentence was the first sentence, and contained no condition, you would read forward to find what the adjective ("this") and noun ("condition") referred to.

Reread the sentence, substituting "waterfront commerce" for "this condition." This substitution doesn't fit the general logic of the passage, for in the 1970's people weren't thinking about waterfront commerce. Water-borne transportation had been replaced by planes, trains, and trucks; and people were thinking about the idle water fronts. You may have selected this option because you read too far back in the passage, skipping the nearest reference.

The details of the passage develop this statement as the overall topic. Numerous details about the discovery are provided: what was found (lines 1-5, 29-38, 41-45), where and how (lines 17-20) and why the discovery is new (lines 3-9, 39-40).

The Viking settlement has been turned into a tourist attraction (lines 21-24), but this is merely a detail which helps to develop the purpose. Don't be misled because the passage contains the information in the option. Note that you are directed to choose the primary purpose of the passage, not a detail.

The passage does contain the words in the option (lines 34-35) and examples of the intimate details (lines 35-38). Note, however that this information is contained in only one of ten paragraphs. The other nine paragraphs contain numerous details which don't help develop the idea of "intimate details of Viking life." Because of the limited, undeveloped, and specific nature of this option, it isn't the primary purpose.

The problem with this option is that this passage does not describe the process of archaeological research. It describes a particular discovery. The process of research would include the series of actions that lead to archaeological discoveries. This passage focuses on the discovery of a single Viking settlement.

The sentence that follows the sentence containing "ravaging" is where the context clue is provided. An inaccurate belief is described in that sentence. Specifically, the Vikings were believed to be "blood-thirsty bands of pillagers." Pillage means "to loot and plunder," or, in other words, to rob and destroy. Bands that rob and destroy are "ravaging rovers."

Reread the first two sentences of the passage, lines 1-9, to gain the context for the word "ravaging." The information in these sentences does not suggest that the Vikings were hungry. Perhaps you selected this option because you misunderstood the author's use of "blood-thirsty." This term means "eager to shed blood." Or you may have chosen it because you thought that the Vikings would get hungry traveling all over the globe.

Reread the first two sentences of the passage, lines 1-9, to gain the context for the word "ravaging." The information in these sentences does not suggest that the Vikings were thirsty. Perhaps you selected this option because you misunderstood the figurative term, "blood-thirsty." It does not mean to be thirsty; it means "to be eager to shed blood."

Reread the first two sentences of the passage, lines 1-9, to gain the context for the word "ravaging." You are told that the Vikings traveled the globe and that they were rovers. Both of these pieces of information relate to traveling, but they do not define ravaging. You have to select what type of travelers the Vikings were believed to be.

The passage describes what the archaeologists found in the settlement but it does not say they discovered it. You have misinter preted the passage, possibly because you began with the assumption that archaeologists made the discovery. The first fifteen lines of the passage seemed to confirm your assumption ("We dug down"). However, you missed the information in the last sentence of the fourth paragraph ("Workers discovered"). Another reason you may have been attracted to this option is that it came first and you didn't bother to read all four choices. Be careful of skipping options and of making assump tions. A passage may contain information different from what you expected or what you had learned previously.

Jorvik is the Anglo-Saxon name for the Viking settlement (lines 27-28). Reread the question substituting the name, then reread this option. Your choice would read "Jorvik was discovered by builders reconstructing Jorvik." This just doesn't make sense! Someone would have to discover the settlement before it could be rebuilt, not as it is being built.

Tourists are mentioned in the passage (lines 21-22) -- but as tourists of the restored settlement. In other words, the tourists will see what someone else discovered and others rebuilt. Don't be misled by the mention of buried objects.

The answer is contained in a single sentence, lines 17-20. Some interpretation of this sentence is necessary. First, you have to understand that "the sophisticated settlement" in line 18 is the same thing as "the Viking settlement" in the question. Second, you have to recognize the change from active voice in the passage ("Workers discovered") to passive voice in the question ("was discovered by"). Third, you have to realize that "a central district of York" in the passage is "parts of a city" in the option. While you might not have known for sure that York is a city, the similar vocabulary ("was leveled," and "leveling") would help you make this inference.

Note that the question directs you to choose the best descriptor for the Vikings. The author does clearly approve of the Vikings, so you know you are looking for a positive adjective. "Democratic" is positive, but the passage does not contain information about the Viking form of government. Without such information, you can't tell if they were or were not democratic. This adjective doesn't, therefore, meet the "best" standard.

The passage contains several pieces of information to support this answer. The first clue is the direct statement, "sophisticated settlement," in line 18. Paragraphs eight and ten name specific objects used by the Vikings and their trading activities. Another direct mention is made in lines 39-40, "nation with a sophisticated monetary system." The overall tone of the passage suggests that the characterization would be positive, for the author approves of the Vikings. Using just the tone clue limits the choices to the first two options.

Note that the stem directs you to choose the best descriptor for the Vikings. Your answer is to be based on the contents of the entire passage. This choice is wrong because it describes the Incorrect view of the Vikings (lines 1-9). This view has been challenged by the discovery of Jorvik. Further, this is a negative adjective and does not fit with the author's approval of the Vikings.

Note that the question directs you to choose the best descriptor for the Vikings. Your answer is to be based on the contents of the entire passage. This choice is wrong because it describes the Incorrect view of the Vikings (lines 1-9). This view has been challenged by the discovery of Jorvik. Further, this is a negative adjective and does not fit with the author's approval of the Vikings.

One hundred years ago would be after 1885. You don't have to be a history major to know that the Vikings lived long before the 1800's! Along with passage information (line 23) check to see that your choice "makes sense."

The answer may be selected on the basis of the definition of millennium (line 2). If you don't know the meaning of this word, though, the passage contains more information. A more direct answer may be found in lines 23-24 -- the Vikings came to York in 866 A.D. Of the four options, one thousand years ago would be the closest to 866 A.D.