47 Questions Turn to Section 1 of your answer sheet to answer the questions in this section.
Each passage or pair of passages in this section is followed by a number of questions. After reading each passage or pair, choose the best answer to each question based on what is stated or implied in the passage or passages and in any accompanying graphics (such as a table or graph).
Questions 1 through 9 are based on the following passage.
Note: The following figure supplements this passage.
Adapted from Monty G. Marshall, Keith Jaggers, and Ted Robert Gurr. “Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800 through 2010,” Polity IV Project.
Begin skippable figure description.
The figure, which presents a graph of 2 lines, is titled “Proliferation of Democracies and the Decline of Autocracies: 1950 through 2011.” The years 1950 through 2010, in increments of five years, are indicated on the horizontal axis. The vertical axis is labeled “Number of countries,” and the numbers 0 through 100, in increments of 20, are indicated. A dashed line, which represents democracies, begins at 20 countries in 1950 and moves gradually upward and to the right until it reaches 42 countries in 1985. The line then moves steeply upward and to the right until it reaches 95 countries in 2005, where it moves horizontally to the right until 2011. A solid line, which represents autocracies, begins at 20 countries in 1950 and moves upward and to the right until it reaches a peak at 90 countries in 1977. The line then moves downward and to the right until it reaches 75 countries in 1986. It then moves steeply downward and to the right until it reaches 45 countries in 1990. Then, the line moves gradually downward and to the right until it reaches 23 countries in 2011.
Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well‑disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. . . .
The mass of men serve the state . . . not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, . . . et cetera. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office‑holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. . . .
How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to‑day? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also.
You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with Saint Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man‑made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. . . . Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong. . . .
In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist [by refusing to comply with the Supreme Court ruling]. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
As used in sentence 4 of paragraph 2 of Passage 1, the word “command” most nearly means
Thoreau makes which point about people who follow their consciences?
A. They often band together with other entities to form corporations.
B. They tend to have mutually antagonistic relationships with their governments.
C. They generally believe that the exercise of the moral sense is what makes them human.
D. They hold their legislators to a different moral standard than that to which they hold themselves.
Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to question 30?
A. Sentence 1 of paragraph 1 of Passage 1 (“Must . . . legislator”)
B. Sentence 6 of paragraph 1 of Passage 1 (“It is . . . conscience”)
C. Sentence 3 of paragraph 2 of Passage 1 (“In most . . . well”)
D. Sentence 8 of paragraph 2 of Passage 1 (“A very . . . by it”)
According to King, an unjust statute should not be
A. regarded as having moral authority.
B. broken in a manner intended to attract attention.
C. viewed as detrimental to the human spirit.
D. used to enforce obedience to moral law.
Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to question 32?
A. Sentence 5 of paragraph 1 of Passage 2 (“The answer . . . unjust”)
B. Sentence 7 of paragraph 1 of Passage 2 (“One . . . laws”)
C. Sentences 8 and 9 of paragraph 1 of Passage 2 (“one . . . all”)
D. Sentence 7 of paragraph 2 of Passage 2 (“Any . . . unjust”)
As used in sentence 2 of paragraph 2 of Passage 2, the word “determine” most nearly means