Directions: The PSAT Reading test consists of five passages on a variety of topics. Each passage is followed by a series of 9 or 10 questions. Carefully read the passage that is provided and answer the multiple choice questions based on what is stated or implied.
Questions 1–10 are based on the following passage.
It can be difficult for even law experts to understand the intricacies of every law in the country, but whether or not you understand a law has no bearing on how that law can affect you. Take for example the practice of eminent domain, a concept that has appeared in different form across cultures for many years. Not everyone knows what eminent domain is, and most people will never have to deal with it. But for the small percentage of Americans who will have to deal with it, a little knowledge can go a long way.
Eminent domain refers to the government’s ability to take ownership of a citizen’s private property without their consent. At first glance, this practice is in diametrical opposition to the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which promises, “the right of the people to be secure in their […] houses […] and effects […] against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but government entities can get around this by “fairly” compensating citizens for their property. Instead of stealing a citizen’s property against the citizen’s wishes, the government is buying it against the citizen’s wishes.
Now, the government has to have a specific reason to seize someone’s property using eminent domain, and it’s not hard to justify the practice on paper. Imagine a property owner who has let several properties in a neighborhood fall into disarray. The government can step in using eminent domain, pay the landowner for her property, and turn it into a park that benefits the entire neighborhood. As you may have guessed, though, this is not exactly how it ends up working in practice. While originally designed so that the government could turn private property into public property (parks, monuments, roadways), they can also seize this private property and give/sell it to another private entity, as long as it “benefits the public.” It’s in this ambiguous idea that real problems arise.
Now, imagine a family in a small town who owns a local hardware store, a store that has been passed down from generation-to-generation for 100 years. The city government of this small town decides that the best way to boost their economy is to develop their downtown area as a new shopping destination for the region. Developing this area, they hope, will bring new life and money into the town and help revitalize the local economy. Using eminent domain, the government takes the family’s hardware store and sells it to a national clothing chain. The government has just legally taken a business from a hard-working American family and given it to private corporation in the name of “public benefit.”
Supporters of eminent domain argue that if citizens are being fairly compensated for their property, the government isn’t taking advantage of anyone. But how do we decide what is fair? Consider the earlier example of the small-town, family-owned hardware store. The value of the property would be decided by the government’s appraisal team, which raises a number of issues. The first is that the appraisers work for the government, so it’s not hard to imagine that their assessment of the property will be low. The second is that the value of a business like this that has sustained a family for generations is more than the worth of the land. The government would be taking away the only source of income this family has ever known, and what appraiser is prepared to put a valuation on the thing that has bound a family for 100 years?
Consider also the population that laws like this will disproportionately affect. The government isn’t going to seize a CEO’s mansion to build a park because that family pays high property taxes and spends a lot of money in the community. An apartment complex downtown that houses 15 families who are on the brink of poverty, however, is ripe for “revitalization.” Regardless of the “public benefit,” the government should be wary of any laws that so blatantly target lower socio-economic communities. Some have even gone so far as to accuse eminent domain laws of being intentionally racist, harassing people of color and running them out of their homes in the name of gentrification.
It can be difficult for even law experts to understand the intricacies of every law in the country, but whether or not you understand a law has no bearing on how that law can affect you. Take for example the practice of eminent domain, a concept that has appeared in different form across cultures for many years. Not everyone knows what eminent domain is, and most people will never have to deal with it. But for the small percentage of Americans who will have to deal with it, a little knowledge can go a long way.
Eminent domain refers to the government’s ability to take ownership of a citizen’s private property without their consent. At first glance, this practice is in diametrical opposition to the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which promises, “the right of the people to be secure in their […] houses […] and effects […] against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but government entities can get around this by “fairly” compensating citizens for their property. Instead of stealing a citizen’s property against the citizen’s wishes, the government is buying it against the citizen’s wishes.
Now, the government has to have a specific reason to seize someone’s property using eminent domain, and it’s not hard to justify the practice on paper. Imagine a property owner who has let several properties in a neighborhood fall into disarray. The government can step in using eminent domain, pay the landowner for her property, and turn it into a park that benefits the entire neighborhood. As you may have guessed, though, this is not exactly how it ends up working in practice. While originally designed so that the government could turn private property into public property (parks, monuments, roadways), they can also seize this private property and give/sell it to another private entity, as long as it “benefits the public.” It’s in this ambiguous idea that real problems arise.
Now, imagine a family in a small town who owns a local hardware store, a store that has been passed down from generation-to-generation for 100 years. The city government of this small town decides that the best way to boost their economy is to develop their downtown area as a new shopping destination for the region. Developing this area, they hope, will bring new life and money into the town and help revitalize the local economy. Using eminent domain, the government takes the family’s hardware store and sells it to a national clothing chain. The government has just legally taken a business from a hard-working American family and given it to private corporation in the name of “public benefit.”
Supporters of eminent domain argue that if citizens are being fairly compensated for their property, the government isn’t taking advantage of anyone. But how do we decide what is fair? Consider the earlier example of the small-town, family-owned hardware store. The value of the property would be decided by the government’s appraisal team, which raises a number of issues. The first is that the appraisers work for the government, so it’s not hard to imagine that their assessment of the property will be low. The second is that the value of a business like this that has sustained a family for generations is more than the worth of the land. The government would be taking away the only source of income this family has ever known, and what appraiser is prepared to put a valuation on the thing that has bound a family for 100 years?
Consider also the population that laws like this will disproportionately affect. The government isn’t going to seize a CEO’s mansion to build a park because that family pays high property taxes and spends a lot of money in the community. An apartment complex downtown that houses 15 families who are on the brink of poverty, however, is ripe for “revitalization.” Regardless of the “public benefit,” the government should be wary of any laws that so blatantly target lower socio-economic communities. Some have even gone so far as to accuse eminent domain laws of being intentionally racist, harassing people of color and running them out of their homes in the name of gentrification.
Congratulations - you have completed .
You scored %%SCORE%% out of %%TOTAL%%.
Your performance has been rated as %%RATING%%
Your answers are highlighted below.
Question 1 |
As used in sentence 1, “intricacies” most nearly means
indecipherable laws | |
malicious complexities | |
complex details | |
overwhelming injustices |
Question 1 Explanation:
Answer choice (C) is correct because the author is trying to explain that laws are complex and detailed. While answer choice (A) is tempting, describing the law as “indecipherable” goes against the point of the sentence. Not many people fully understand every detail of the law, but some do, which makes these details decidedly decipherable, albeit confusing.
Question 2 |
The reference to “the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution” in paragraph 2 primarily serves to
provide constitutional support for eminent domain. | |
compare American law to the laws of other countries. | |
respond directly to a criticism of the author’s opinion. | |
challenge the constitutionality of eminent domain. |
Question 2 Explanation:
Answer choice (D) is correct because the author is pointing out that the concept of eminent domain seems to contradict an important part of the US Constitution. None of the other answer choices are accurate to the context of the passage.
Question 3 |
The passage’s discussion of a family in a small town serves primarily to
illustrate the ways in which eminent domain can improve a community. | |
provide a hypothetical example of how eminent domain can hurt American citizens. | |
satirize people who support eminent domain. | |
describe the typical types of Americans who support eminent domain. |
Question 3 Explanation:
Answer choice (B) is correct because the author uses this example of a family losing what they hold dear to juxtapose the government’s promise of “public benefit.” Answer choice (C) might be tempting because it represents a criticism of supporters of eminent domain, but describing this story as “satire” would be inappropriate.
Question 4 |
As used in the final sentence of paragraph 3, “ambiguous” most nearly means
vague and open to interpretation. | |
neither entirely good nor entirely bad. | |
intentionally confusing. | |
overly specific. |
Question 4 Explanation:
Answer choice (A) is correct because the author is using this sentence as a transition into the ways in which the phrase “benefits the public” can be stretched to fit whatever the government wants it to.
Question 5 |
The author indicates that although the government compensates citizens when their property is seized through eminent domain,
the government has a history of not actually paying the proposed “compensation.” | |
the compensation is decided by the government, and doesn’t take important factors into account. | |
the government, as a matter of practice, pays only half of a property’s true value when it’s seized through eminent domain. | |
they often pay too much, and are too cavalier with taxpayer money. |
Question 5 Explanation:
Answer choice (B) is correct. While the author hints that the government may also undervalue the property, they don’t go so far as to suggest that the government intentionally only pays half of the value of a piece of property (C).
Question 6 |
Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?
(Click on the left arrow to go back and review the previous question)“Now, imagine a family in a small town who owns a local hardware store, a store that has been passed down from generation-to-generation for 100 years.” | |
“Developing this area, they hope, will bring new life and money into the town and help revitalize the local economy.” | |
“The value of the property would be decided by the government’s appraisal team, which raises a number of issues.” | |
“The second is that the value of a business like this that has sustained a family for generations is more than the worth of the land.” |
Question 6 Explanation:
Answer choice (D) is correct because it suggests that a person’s property can have value beyond the economic worth of the land. Answer choice (C) suggests that there are some problems with the way the government determines a property’s value, but it’s not nearly as specific and directly supportive of the previous answer as answer choice (D).
Question 7 |
The author recognizes counterarguments to the position she takes in the passage by
acknowledging that eminent domain has historically provided a lot of communities with necessary revitalization. | |
describing a hypothetical example of how eminent domain could help a community. | |
admitting that even if the potential for misconduct exists, the government has acted only in the interest of the people up to this point. | |
conceding that although some suggest that eminent domain might be racist towards people of color, it is statistically more likely to displace white citizens. |
Question 7 Explanation:
Answer choice (B) is correct. This, however, does not imply that the government has been entirely innocent thus far (C). Nor does this hypothetical example imply that eminent domain has historically had a helpful impact on many communities (A).
Question 8 |
Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?
“Instead of stealing a citizen’s property against the citizen’s wishes, the government is buying it against the citizen’s wishes.” | |
“The government can step in using eminent domain, pay the landowner for her property, and turn it into a park that benefits the entire neighborhood.” | |
“While originally designed so that the government could turn private property into public property (parks, monuments, roadways), they can also seize this private property and give/sell it to another private entity, as long as it ‘benefits the public.’” | |
“Supporters of eminent domain argue that if citizens are being fairly compensated for their property, the government isn’t taking advantage of anyone.” |
Question 8 Explanation:
Answer choice (B) is correct because it describes how the process could work efficiently, effectively, and benefit a neighborhood greatly. The other answer choices don’t speak to this idea.
Question 9 |
As it is used in the first sentence of paragraph 6, “disproportionately” most nearly means
not enough | |
unbalanced | |
too much in comparison | |
maliciously |
Question 9 Explanation:
Answer choice (C) is correct because the author is proposing that eminent domain affects lower income families more than middle-class and rich families. While answer choice (B) hints at this meaning, “unbalanced” doesn’t fit in the sentence.
Question 10 |
Which situation is most similar to the one described in paragraph 6 (“Consider…gentrification.”)?
The government seizes the house of a wealthy family because it is a historical landmark. | |
Two neighbors are caught in a dispute over where the dividing line between their properties lies, and the government intervenes to settle the dispute. | |
A city passes a new law that leads to people of color being unfairly searched on the streets. | |
A new sales tax causes a store owner to raise her prices, and she loses customers. |
Question 10 Explanation:
Answer choice (C) is correct because the situation in the passage is a law that is affecting one part of the population more than the other. A law impacting people of color more than white people would be a similar situation.
Once you are finished, click the button below. Any items you have not completed will be marked incorrect.
There are 10 questions to complete.
|
List |
More PSAT Practice:
PSAT Main Menu >>