ShmoopTube

00:04

Here's your Shmoop du jour, brought to you by skepticism. We have a lot of doubts about it to say the least.

00:11

Check out the following passage...

00:23

For the sake of logic and coherence, Paragraph 2 should be placed where?

00:27

And here are the potential answers...

00:31

To decide the most logical order for the paragraphs, we need a solid idea of what each one is about.

00:37

Paragraph 1, for example, introduces the theory that tornadic waterspouts might be responsible

00:43

for frog and fish storms, and it ends by discussing the differences between a tornado and a waterspout.

00:51

Paragraph 2 then jumps right into the scintillating details of how waterspouts are formed.

00:55

After that, Paragraph 3 brings tornadoes back into the mix and begins by discussing how

01:00

tornadoes and waterspouts are similar.

01:03

Paragraph 4 then talks about how all reports of frogs and fish raining from the sky are

01:08

questionable.

01:09

Which sorta makes us question why anybody bothered writing this article, but OK.

01:15

Given that paragraph rundown, we're opting for choice (D) on this one.

01:19

Paragraph 1 ends by talking about the difference between tornadoes and waterspouts, while Paragraph

01:23

3 begins by discussing their similarities.

01:25

There's a logical progression between 1 and 3, so there's no reason for Paragraph 2 to keep them apart.

01:31

Unless it's just jealousy, but there's no time for that in the world of the ACT.

Full Transcript