Question

which two sentences in passage 1 support the claim in part a?
the members of the australasian antarctic expedition 2013–2014 (aae) seemed strangely biasé—even giddily upbeat—during their ten days stranded in the ice. (paragraph 3)
the u.s. sent another icebreaker, the u.s. polar star, to rescue xue long and shokalskiy, but that mission was recently called off when the ships were able to break free from the ice. (paragraph 8)
in the wake of the rescue, a strong undercurrent of criticism began to spread among some antarctic scientists and journalists. (paragraph 10)
other commentators told revkin that the conditions of the pack ice near commonwealth bay (a research subject of the 2013–14 expedition) amounted to an obvious setup for getting frozen in. (paragraph 11)
the whole expedition, these experts implied, amounted to a “frivolous” lark that added almost nothing to our knowledge of the southern continent. (paragraph 11)

Explanation:

To solve this, we need to analyze which sentence supports a claim (though the claim in Part A isn't shown, we can infer based on context). Let's examine each:

1. The first sentence talks about the AAE members’ attitude during being stranded – this is about their behavior, not supporting a claim about the expedition’s value or criticism.
2. The second sentence is about a rescue mission being called off – it’s a factual event, not supporting a claim.
3. The third sentence says criticism spread after the rescue – this sets up criticism, but not direct support.
4. The fourth sentence: Commentators said the pack ice conditions were an “obvious setup” for getting frozen – this implies the expedition was ill - planned.
5. The fifth sentence: Experts implied the expedition was a “frivolous” lark with no knowledge gain – this directly supports a claim (likely negative) about the expedition’s value.

Assuming the claim in Part A is about the expedition being criticized as unproductive/frivolous, the sentence “The whole expedition, these experts implied, amounted to a ‘frivolous’ lark that added almost nothing to our knowledge of the southern continent. (paragraph 11)” (the last one) best supports it.

Para apoyar una afirmación (probablemente crítica sobre la expedición), la oración que indica que la expedición fue una "chanza frivola" sin aportar conocimiento al continente sur (última oración, párrafo 11) es la más relevante, ya que directamente refuerza una crítica sobre el valor de la expedición.

Answer:

The whole expedition, these experts implied, amounted to a "frivolous" lark that added almost nothing to our knowledge of the southern continent. (paragraph 11)