Little Andrea has just learned that robins are birds. She now sees a sparrow, points to it, and calls out “Bird!” According to Jean Piaget, Andrea is showing the cognitive process of

The Great Bird     “Where are you now, Heidi?” Peter called out crossly. “Here,” called back a voice from somewhere. Peter couldn’t see anyone, for Heidi was sitting at the foot of a small hill that was covered with sweet smelling flowers. The air seemed full of perfume, and Heidi thought she had never smelt anything so delicious.“Come here, please!” Peter called again.“Where are the rocks?” asked Heidi, answering him back. But she did not move from her seat. Peter replied that they were high above them and that they still had a long way to go. He also said that was where they might be able to see the old bird of prey.That did it. Heidi immediately sprang to her feet and ran to Peter with her apron full of flowers. “You have got enough flowers now, Heidi,” the boy said, as they began climbing up again together. “If you pick all the flowers now there won’t be any tomorrow.”This argument seemed a convincing one. She stayed with Peter now. The goats also were beginning to smell their favorite plants that grew on the higher slopes and climbed eagerly and quickly to reach them. They soon arrived at the spot where Peter generally stopped for the goats to feed. Heidi looked around her. The morning sun shone strongly. To the left was a huge pile of rocks and on the right a tall peak rose high into the dark-blue sky. Suddenly there was a movement: “Peter!” Heidi shouted. “Look!”Together they saw a great bird rising till it disappeared behind the grey mountain-tops.Heidi and Peter with the goats in the mountains. “Where has it gone?” Heidi asked.“Home to its nest,” said Peter. “How nice to be up so high!” Heidi replied. Let’s climb up there to see the nest.”   Peter immediately refused Heidi’s suggestion: “Your grandfather told you not to climb on the rocks,” he said. “And anyway,” he added, “not even the goats can climb as high as that.”1. Where was Heidi?       1 pointYour answer2. What did Heidi hope to see high in the mountain?1 pointYour answer3. How was Heidi carrying the flowers she had picked?1 pointYour answer4. Why did the goats increase their speed?1 pointYour answer5. Where was the bird going when Heidi saw it?1 pointYour answer6. What did Heidi suggest to Peter?1 pointYour answer7. How many reasons did Peter give for refusing the idea?1 pointYour answer

Research on animal intelligence has proliferated in recent decades, producing additional evidence of complex types of thought in non-human creatures.  Although primates have been the most frequent subjects of such study, observations of avians have at times proved even more striking.  In particular, some members of the Corvid family (such as ravens, crows, and jays) display a high capability to successfully confront novel challenges through innovative behavior.One occasion of such behavior was documented by University of Vermont zoologist Bernd Heinrich in an experiment with Common Ravens.  Heinrich's central focus was whether the birds could discern the solution to a newly encountered problem of food acquisition without any training or prior familiarity with the problem's elements.  To address this question, he presented groups of ravens with pieces of meat suspended from a perch by a length of string.  The food was too far from either the perch or the ground to be reached from those vantage points.  Hence, accessing the food efficiently would require using the string itself, a situation not encountered in the wild and to which none of the birds had been previously exposed.The first two ravens to approach the food found little success in retrieving it.  As Heinrich relates, both Bird 3 and Bird 27 attempted to jump and grab the meat from the air.  Although this process resulted in only tiny scraps of food being obtained, both birds initially "tried no other method after the pattern was established on the first day."  However, another raven fared far better.  After pecking and yanking on the string, Bird 4 "appeared to abandon all attempts to get the meat, but [six hours] later again tried the same behavior.  This time, however, after one of these yanks of the string, the bird put one foot on this pulled-up string, reached down and pulled up another length of string, to step on it again after backing up another step along the perch, to repeat the process until reaching the meat."  Thus, the raven "performed a behavioral sequence of at least six steps…with no apparent trial-and-error learning for most if not all of these steps, chaining these steps together into a single unbroken sequence."  Days later, Bird 5 also discovered how to access the meat in this way, completing "the entire repetitive sequence correctly all at once."  Eventually Bird 3 and Bird 30 learned as well, but only after weeks of further opportunities.The most notable point of these observations is the ravens' apparent ability to solve a problem for which neither instinct nor experience could be expected to have prepared them.  Heinrich casts his experiment in terms of testing for insight, or "the possibility of mental awareness—of seeing into a situation."  Naturally, such awareness can only be inferred rather than observed directly, and researchers should be wary of the tendency to anthropomorphize animals when discussing their mental capabilities.  Nevertheless, such wariness should not prevent us from drawing at least probable or tentative conclusions.  Bird 4 especially seems almost to have mentally worked through the scenario in the intervening time between its originally unsuccessful and subsequent successful attempts to retrieve the food.  In the human world, we might speak of someone thinking about a problem for a while before trying another solution.  Even if we are reluctant to view Bird 4's behavior as a precise analogue, it seems clear that the raven displayed evidence of a noteworthy mental operation.  In further experiments, some other ravens also demonstrated the ability to pull up food on strings.  Although Heinrich notes that the birds exhibiting this behavior are "possibly exceptional," they represent a fascinating example in our understanding of animal intelligence.Passage Title: Ravens: Learning through Insight Question 19What is the main point of Paragraph 4?A.Heinrich conceived his experiment as testing for insight.B.Ravens' mental capabilities are exceptional among most animals.C.At least some ravens seem to exhibit insight in solving problems.D.Ravens' mental capabilities should not be anthropomorphized.

Research on animal intelligence has proliferated in recent decades, producing additional evidence of complex types of thought in non-human creatures.  Although primates have been the most frequent subjects of such study, observations of avians have at times proved even more striking.  In particular, some members of the Corvid family (such as ravens, crows, and jays) display a high capability to successfully confront novel challenges through innovative behavior.One occasion of such behavior was documented by University of Vermont zoologist Bernd Heinrich in an experiment with Common Ravens.  Heinrich's central focus was whether the birds could discern the solution to a newly encountered problem of food acquisition without any training or prior familiarity with the problem's elements.  To address this question, he presented groups of ravens with pieces of meat suspended from a perch by a length of string.  The food was too far from either the perch or the ground to be reached from those vantage points.  Hence, accessing the food efficiently would require using the string itself, a situation not encountered in the wild and to which none of the birds had been previously exposed.The first two ravens to approach the food found little success in retrieving it.  As Heinrich relates, both Bird 3 and Bird 27 attempted to jump and grab the meat from the air.  Although this process resulted in only tiny scraps of food being obtained, both birds initially "tried no other method after the pattern was established on the first day."  However, another raven fared far better.  After pecking and yanking on the string, Bird 4 "appeared to abandon all attempts to get the meat, but [six hours] later again tried the same behavior.  This time, however, after one of these yanks of the string, the bird put one foot on this pulled-up string, reached down and pulled up another length of string, to step on it again after backing up another step along the perch, to repeat the process until reaching the meat."  Thus, the raven "performed a behavioral sequence of at least six steps…with no apparent trial-and-error learning for most if not all of these steps, chaining these steps together into a single unbroken sequence."  Days later, Bird 5 also discovered how to access the meat in this way, completing "the entire repetitive sequence correctly all at once."  Eventually Bird 3 and Bird 30 learned as well, but only after weeks of further opportunities.The most notable point of these observations is the ravens' apparent ability to solve a problem for which neither instinct nor experience could be expected to have prepared them.  Heinrich casts his experiment in terms of testing for insight, or "the possibility of mental awareness—of seeing into a situation."  Naturally, such awareness can only be inferred rather than observed directly, and researchers should be wary of the tendency to anthropomorphize animals when discussing their mental capabilities.  Nevertheless, such wariness should not prevent us from drawing at least probable or tentative conclusions.  Bird 4 especially seems almost to have mentally worked through the scenario in the intervening time between its originally unsuccessful and subsequent successful attempts to retrieve the food.  In the human world, we might speak of someone thinking about a problem for a while before trying another solution.  Even if we are reluctant to view Bird 4's behavior as a precise analogue, it seems clear that the raven displayed evidence of a noteworthy mental operation.  In further experiments, some other ravens also demonstrated the ability to pull up food on strings.  Although Heinrich notes that the birds exhibiting this behavior are "possibly exceptional," they represent a fascinating example in our understanding of animal intelligence.Passage Title: Ravens: Learning through Insight Question 21During another researcher's observation of Corvids, a Steller's Jay deliberately broke a twig off a bush and subsequently thrust it at an American Crow with which it was competing for food.  The researcher interpreted the jay's behavior as a unique instance of a bird using a weapon.  This interpretation would most accord with which of the following ideas in the passage?A.The claim that avians have displayed even more striking behavior than primatesB.The claim that some types of challenges would not be encountered in the wildC.The conclusion that Corvids are highly capable of successfully confronting novel challengesD.The conclusion that animal behavior research provides evidence of complex types of thought in non-humans

Research on animal intelligence has proliferated in recent decades, producing additional evidence of complex types of thought in non-human creatures.  Although primates have been the most frequent subjects of such study, observations of avians have at times proved even more striking.  In particular, some members of the Corvid family (such as ravens, crows, and jays) display a high capability to successfully confront novel challenges through innovative behavior.One occasion of such behavior was documented by University of Vermont zoologist Bernd Heinrich in an experiment with Common Ravens.  Heinrich's central focus was whether the birds could discern the solution to a newly encountered problem of food acquisition without any training or prior familiarity with the problem's elements.  To address this question, he presented groups of ravens with pieces of meat suspended from a perch by a length of string.  The food was too far from either the perch or the ground to be reached from those vantage points.  Hence, accessing the food efficiently would require using the string itself, a situation not encountered in the wild and to which none of the birds had been previously exposed.The first two ravens to approach the food found little success in retrieving it.  As Heinrich relates, both Bird 3 and Bird 27 attempted to jump and grab the meat from the air.  Although this process resulted in only tiny scraps of food being obtained, both birds initially "tried no other method after the pattern was established on the first day."  However, another raven fared far better.  After pecking and yanking on the string, Bird 4 "appeared to abandon all attempts to get the meat, but [six hours] later again tried the same behavior.  This time, however, after one of these yanks of the string, the bird put one foot on this pulled-up string, reached down and pulled up another length of string, to step on it again after backing up another step along the perch, to repeat the process until reaching the meat."  Thus, the raven "performed a behavioral sequence of at least six steps…with no apparent trial-and-error learning for most if not all of these steps, chaining these steps together into a single unbroken sequence."  Days later, Bird 5 also discovered how to access the meat in this way, completing "the entire repetitive sequence correctly all at once."  Eventually Bird 3 and Bird 30 learned as well, but only after weeks of further opportunities.The most notable point of these observations is the ravens' apparent ability to solve a problem for which neither instinct nor experience could be expected to have prepared them.  Heinrich casts his experiment in terms of testing for insight, or "the possibility of mental awareness—of seeing into a situation."  Naturally, such awareness can only be inferred rather than observed directly, and researchers should be wary of the tendency to anthropomorphize animals when discussing their mental capabilities.  Nevertheless, such wariness should not prevent us from drawing at least probable or tentative conclusions.  Bird 4 especially seems almost to have mentally worked through the scenario in the intervening time between its originally unsuccessful and subsequent successful attempts to retrieve the food.  In the human world, we might speak of someone thinking about a problem for a while before trying another solution.  Even if we are reluctant to view Bird 4's behavior as a precise analogue, it seems clear that the raven displayed evidence of a noteworthy mental operation.  In further experiments, some other ravens also demonstrated the ability to pull up food on strings.  Although Heinrich notes that the birds exhibiting this behavior are "possibly exceptional," they represent a fascinating example in our understanding of animal intelligence.Passage Title: Ravens: Learning through Insight Question 20Which of the following pieces of information would most weaken the author's conclusions about the birds in Heinrich's experiment?A.The Loggerhead Shrike, a non-Corvid species, instinctually suspends its prey by impaling it on thorns.B.Instead of attempting to retrieve the suspended food, some ravens tried to steal food retrieved by others.C.Some ravens never successfully retrieved the suspended food.D.Some ravens had access to the suspended food when not being observed by Heinrich.

Research on animal intelligence has proliferated in recent decades, producing additional evidence of complex types of thought in non-human creatures.  Although primates have been the most frequent subjects of such study, observations of avians have at times proved even more striking.  In particular, some members of the Corvid family (such as ravens, crows, and jays) display a high capability to successfully confront novel challenges through innovative behavior.One occasion of such behavior was documented by University of Vermont zoologist Bernd Heinrich in an experiment with Common Ravens.  Heinrich's central focus was whether the birds could discern the solution to a newly encountered problem of food acquisition without any training or prior familiarity with the problem's elements.  To address this question, he presented groups of ravens with pieces of meat suspended from a perch by a length of string.  The food was too far from either the perch or the ground to be reached from those vantage points.  Hence, accessing the food efficiently would require using the string itself, a situation not encountered in the wild and to which none of the birds had been previously exposed.The first two ravens to approach the food found little success in retrieving it.  As Heinrich relates, both Bird 3 and Bird 27 attempted to jump and grab the meat from the air.  Although this process resulted in only tiny scraps of food being obtained, both birds initially "tried no other method after the pattern was established on the first day."  However, another raven fared far better.  After pecking and yanking on the string, Bird 4 "appeared to abandon all attempts to get the meat, but [six hours] later again tried the same behavior.  This time, however, after one of these yanks of the string, the bird put one foot on this pulled-up string, reached down and pulled up another length of string, to step on it again after backing up another step along the perch, to repeat the process until reaching the meat."  Thus, the raven "performed a behavioral sequence of at least six steps…with no apparent trial-and-error learning for most if not all of these steps, chaining these steps together into a single unbroken sequence."  Days later, Bird 5 also discovered how to access the meat in this way, completing "the entire repetitive sequence correctly all at once."  Eventually Bird 3 and Bird 30 learned as well, but only after weeks of further opportunities.The most notable point of these observations is the ravens' apparent ability to solve a problem for which neither instinct nor experience could be expected to have prepared them.  Heinrich casts his experiment in terms of testing for insight, or "the possibility of mental awareness—of seeing into a situation."  Naturally, such awareness can only be inferred rather than observed directly, and researchers should be wary of the tendency to anthropomorphize animals when discussing their mental capabilities.  Nevertheless, such wariness should not prevent us from drawing at least probable or tentative conclusions.  Bird 4 especially seems almost to have mentally worked through the scenario in the intervening time between its originally unsuccessful and subsequent successful attempts to retrieve the food.  In the human world, we might speak of someone thinking about a problem for a while before trying another solution.  Even if we are reluctant to view Bird 4's behavior as a precise analogue, it seems clear that the raven displayed evidence of a noteworthy mental operation.  In further experiments, some other ravens also demonstrated the ability to pull up food on strings.  Although Heinrich notes that the birds exhibiting this behavior are "possibly exceptional," they represent a fascinating example in our understanding of animal intelligence.Passage Title: Ravens: Learning through Insight Question 18In the context of the passage, what is the primary significance of the claim that the suspended food represents a situation ravens would not encounter in the wild?A.It means that the food retrieval could not be achieved through trial and error.B.It rules out potential sources for the birds' behavior.C.It highlights that the experiment focused on animals in captivity.D.It explains the difficulty of the task presented.