sentenceinsertionquestion

(D) is correct because the added sentence gives concrete examples of how different villages focused on different crops, which directly develops the idea in the previous sentence that village-level cultivation of fruit and vegetables had begun. It belongs after that general statement and before the next sentence, which turns to how produce reached city markets and spread beyond the wealthy.

Insertion at (A) is incorrect because the passage has not yet established that growing spread beyond rich people’s private gardens, so a list of village specializations would arrive too early and would not follow from the first sentence of the paragraph.

Insertion at (B) is incorrect because the sentence at (B) only introduces the turn of horticulture into an accepted industry; the prompt sentence is not an elaboration of that policy shift, but a description of on-the-ground village practice that fits after cultivation in villages is mentioned.

Insertion at (C) is incorrect because that position comes before the sentence that first states that the cultivation of fruit and vegetables “began in villages.” The examples of which villages grew what need that general fact in place; putting the new sentence at (C) would present the specializations before the reader has the broader village-cultivation idea.

(C) is correct because the added sentence names population growth as a major impact, and the following sentence then supplies the evidence: a few thousand people grew to tens of thousands in a short time. The sentence in (C) must come after (B) has stated that the climate cycles had “tremendous effects on the small population” so the new sentence can serve as a bridge from that claim to the specific population change.

Insertion at (A) is incorrect because the paragraph is still listing subtle regional changes such as snow lines and rainfall, not the demographic consequence of “fast increase” in human numbers; the new sentence would interrupt that descriptive setup.

Insertion at (B) is incorrect because, although (B) introduces effects on a small population, the prompt sentence is still too general to come immediately there; the author first finishes the “small changes, big effects” thought and then, at (C), makes the “population” topic explicit in the line about hunter-gatherers and farming.

Insertion at (D) is incorrect because the shift in local life and archaeological finds is a later comment on how we know about the period, not a place to insert a sentence that is still introducing the key impact of growing population, which the passage has already supported in the material before (D).

(D) is correct because the phrase “this memory” needs a clear antecedent, and the sentence at (C) is the one that first introduces the idea of a specific kind of personal memory, autobiographical memory, that might explain infantile amnesia. The added sentence then narrows the claim before the passage contrasts memory after age three in the next sentence. Placing the insert at (D) preserves that reference chain.

Insertion at (A) is incorrect because the paragraph has not yet introduced autobiographical memory or any single “memory” that the pronoun “this” could pick out, so the new sentence would be grammatically and logically incoherent at the start.

Insertion at (B) is incorrect because the author is still setting up the puzzle of infantile amnesia versus early memory skills; the prompt sentence, which presupposes a particular memory under discussion, does not follow naturally from a general claim about what has fascinated researchers.

Insertion at (C) is incorrect because the pronoun in “this memory” has to follow the first clear mention of the kind of memory under discussion, which appears in the long sentence beginning “Several psychologists have found…” A placement at (C) would put the new sentence before that introduction of autobiographical memory, so the reference would be incomplete.

(D) is correct because the new sentence about storytellers making stories more engaging and memorable leads directly into the next line, which explains how a remembered event is gradually elaborated through pantomime, impersonation, and finally separate roles. The insert belongs at the end of the sequence that defines the storytelling alternative, not at the start of a new major topic.

Insertion at (A) is incorrect because that position is the transition to “another” theory. Putting the new sentence there would place it before storytelling has been introduced, so the reference to “listeners’ enjoyment” and the activity of “storytellers” would be abrupt and unsupported.

Insertion at (B) is incorrect because the following sentences still need to name storytelling as a pleasure and a theory. The prompt sentence is a detail about what storytellers do, so it should come after the model has at least been introduced as an alternative, not at the one-line topic sentence “Storytelling has been proposed…”.

Insertion at (C) is incorrect because that point comes after the topic sentence “Storytelling has been proposed as one alternative” but before the theory has defined listening to stories as a basic human pleasure. The prompt sentence, which presumes an audience and performance, belongs later, after that theoretical setup and immediately before the “Thus” that describes how a tale is actually elaborated for listeners.

(A) is correct because “These landscape features” needs a plural noun in the previous sentence, and the paragraph has just defined one type, runoff channels, and then named the other type, outflow channels, in a stand-alone lead sentence. The new sentence should come right after that contrast is announced and before the author begins describing where outflow channels appear and what they look like.

Insertion at (B) is incorrect because at that point the passage is already in the middle of specific facts about outflow channels and no longer needs a general contrast sentence that introduces them as a group. The phrase “These landscape features” has to follow immediately after outflow channels have been introduced as the topic of this subsection.

Insertion at (C) is incorrect because the teardrop-shaped “islands” and flood evidence continue the same descriptive development; a broad contrast with runoff would interrupt the specific narrative about onrushing water and landforms.

Insertion at (D) is incorrect because the discussion has moved to flow rates, timing, and the northern volcanic plains, which are conclusions about scale and date rather than a natural place to restate a comparison with runoff channels.

(C) is correct because the new sentence restates a simple layout rule—break the list where chemical groups start to repeat—while the very next sentence begins with “Thus when the series of elements was written…” and describes the table that results. The added sentence is the “natural idea” that motivates the “Thus” step, so it belongs immediately before that outcome.

Insertion at (A) is incorrect because the paragraph is at the “next step” of linking group properties to atomic mass; the prompt sentence is not a comment on that first link, but a rule about how to break the list once the repeating pattern of groups is known.

Insertion at (B) is incorrect because the sentence in (B) is still reporting what was observed when elements were ordered by mass (groups repeated at intervals), not the decision to “break up the series” into rows for the table, which the author builds toward after that observation.

Insertion at (D) is incorrect because “This table was the forerunner…” refers to a completed arrangement; the rule about where to start new rows is needed earlier, to explain why the table was set up in that way, not as an afterword once the forerunner has already been named.

(D) is correct because the new sentence says a “more plausible mechanism” was still needed, which forms a clear pivot from the failed contraction model to the current view that stars are powered by nuclear fusion. It fits in the space after the time-scale problem is stated and directly before “We now know that stars are fueled by nuclear fusion.”

Insertion at (A) is incorrect because that would place the call for a new mechanism before the passage has even finished describing what the contraction theory claimed; the author must first set up the old idea before arguing that a better explanation is required.

Insertion at (B) is incorrect because, although the author has just said the contraction process could not be the “primary” way stars shine, the very next step is the detailed rebuttal about lifetime (“If it were, they would scarcely last a million years…”). The new sentence, which looks for a different mechanism, fits best only after that rebuttal is complete.

Insertion at (C) is incorrect because a placement in the slot before the “If it were, they would scarcely last a million years” sentence would still sit between the general denial in (B) and the key evidence about age, breaking the logical order in which the problem is first shown in full, then the need for a new mechanism is stated before fusion is introduced.

(C) is correct because “This, however, was not the case” must refer back to the if-then prediction in the previous sentence: extra carbon dioxide should have changed yawning, and extra oxygen should have suppressed it. The added sentence is the short rejection that the outcome matched that prediction, and it is followed immediately by “In fact, neither condition made any difference…,” which reports the data.

Insertion at (A) is incorrect because the paragraph has not yet set up the experimental condition or the theory’s testable claim, so “this” would not have a clear antecedent and the sentence could not look ahead to a result that is still being introduced.

Insertion at (B) is incorrect because the new sentence is not the hypothesis itself, but a verdict on whether the data matched the hypothesis. It belongs after the prediction is fully stated, not in the middle of the if-then logic before the reader knows what the theory expected to see.

Insertion at (D) is incorrect because by the start of a new experiment about exercise, the oxygen-and-carbon-dioxide test has already been resolved in the “In fact” sentence; a late “this was not the case” would no longer line up with the specific prediction about breathing gases, and the pronoun would be vague.

(D) is correct because the new sentence offers specific examples of which villages raised which crops, which extends the idea in the previous sentence that whole villages had begun to produce fruit and vegetables. It should come right after that general village-level point and before the next sentence, which turns to moving produce to city markets and wider consumption.

Insertion at (A) is incorrect because the passage is still telling the reader that only the wealthy had such produce in the sixteenth century, so a list of what entire villages later specialized in would be chronologically and logically out of place.

Insertion at (B) is incorrect because the sentence at (B) only marks the moment when horticulture was accepted as a sector; the prompt sentence is not a further comment on that acceptance, but a concrete description of how village production was organized, which should follow the statement that whole villages were cultivating these foods.

Insertion at (C) is incorrect because the square before “Whole villages began to cultivate” would place the list of specializations before the author has said that whole villages were involved, so the examples would not read as a natural development of the prior sentence’s claim.

(A) is correct because “In this respect” points to the quality of the intellectual burst described in the first sentences—that it was “for the most part purely creative.” The new sentence then compares that kind of thought to the work of artists and novelists rather than to science as practiced today, and the following sentence, which states that the Greeks were philosophers, not modern scientists, continues that contrast smoothly.

Insertion at (B) is incorrect because, before the new sentence, the text has not yet said that the Greeks were not “scientists in today’s sense,” so a comparison to “scientists constrained by fact” is missing its clearest set-up, which the author supplies on the very next line after the (A) position.

Insertion at (C) is incorrect because, by the middle of the paragraph, the author is already contrasting loose speculation with what a true scientific theory demands; dropping in the artists-and-novelists line there would sit awkwardly between different stages of a more technical argument about method.

Insertion at (D) is incorrect because the final sentence is about limits on ancient thinkers without modern testing; the prompt sentence, which is about what early Greek work resembled, belongs next to the opening idea of unbridled creativity, not as a afterthought to the later warning about lack of experiment.