
W.O.M.B.A.T.
Test-Grade 1
W.O.M.B.A.T stands for Wizards' Ordinary Magic and Basic Aptitude Test.
It's administered by the Wizarding Examinations Authority. The head of
this Authority is Griselda Marchbanks, CDMG, APMD, fbBB.
The W.O.M.B.A.T. test appeared on Rowling's
website on March 31, 2006. This test consisted of questions which require
an extensive knowledge of canon and an intuitive understanding of the wizarding
world to answer. A number of the questions require educated guesses,
since we don't have sufficient information to answer them definitively.
The test is reproduced below with commentary by Steve Vander Ark and
Belinda Hobbs. The purpose of this commentary is to help those who want
to be reminded of handy canon details or who want to consider some of the
implications of what we do or don't know. The commentary is not intended
to give specific answers in most cases, but rather to provide support information
so that the test taker can formulate their answers most effectively. Remember,
in many cases, there is no way for us Muggles to know the exact correct
answer, so feel free to make your best guess.
NOTE: We don't know what the acronyms after Marchbanks' name stand for.
Considering Rowling's devious sense of humor, we're not likely to be able
to guess for sure. That won't stop us, of course.
Head over to the Lexicon
Forum to discuss this and other WOMBAT Grade 1 puzzlers.
See the WOMBAT tests -Results page to learn about the scoring.
GRADE 1
PART ONE
Magical Law
(Points available: 36 out of a possible 100)
RESOURCES FOR THIS SECTION:
Ministry of Magic departments
Wizengamot
MoM-Rules and Regulations
Which Ministry of Magic department(s) and/or committee(s) would you
contact to resolve each of the following dilemmas? (Questions 1-5)
1. Your neighbour is concealing a stash of flying
carpets, some of which he is allowing to fly loose around his back
garden.
a. Wizengamot
b. Department of Internationsal Magical Cooperation
c. Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Office
d. Obliviators
e. All of the Above
f. None of the Above
Commentary:
Steve: Flying carpets fall under Arthur Weasley's department, judging
by the conversation with Barty Crouch before the Quidditch World Cup. So
The Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Office seems the likely choice. The Obliviators
might be needed if the carpets were spotted by Muggles, but since they
seem to be limited to the back garden, it seems unlikely that they would
be spotted by Muggles.
Belinda: I have to wonder about flying carpets being considered "misuse"
in some parts of the world, but not in others. In QA7 we learn that
they are still an accepted mode of transportation in some Eastern countries.
But letting them fly free is most likely misuse. Seems that the bloke Arthur
is talking about in GF7 is contesting his jurisdiction over them, but
it falls under a Trade Restriction as a Proscribed Charmable Object. But
yes, we know it is his department that handles this.
2. Your friend C possesses a Muggle Penny Farthing (old bicycle) that
has been enchanted to skim an inch above the ground, achieving speeds of
over 100mph. C did not personally enchant the Penny Farthing, never rides
it and merely wishes to keep it 'for sentimental reasons' as it was her
grandmother's.
a. Department of Magical Transport
b. Improper Use of Magic Office
c. Obliviators
d. Misuse of Muggle Artefacts Office
e. Committee on Experimental Charms
f. None of the above
Commentary:
Steve: A Penny Farthing is pictured on the right. This is clearly
a Muggle artifact. The only office which would be involved would be the
Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Office. The other offices wouldn't be involved.
C didn't enchant it, they don't ride it, and therefore the magical nature
of the artifact will never be observed by Muggles who would therefore need
Obliviating.
Belinda: Since she has no "intentions of using" the PennyFarthing,
it should fall through the loophole in the law Arthur wrote that specifically
allows someone to own an enchanted Muggle item such as, oh, a car, if the
wizard did not intend to actually use it. In CS3 we have this
exchange between Arthur and Molly:
[Mr. Weasley] There's a loophole in the law, you'll
find.. As long as he wasn't intending to fly the car, the fact that
the car could fly wouldn't - "
"Arthur Weasley, you made sure there was a loophole when you wrote
that law!" shouted Mrs. Weasley. "Just so you could carry on tinkering
with all that Muggle rubbish in your shed!"
So I wouldn't report it at all.
3. Your sixteen year old nephew, D, has hexed his seventeen-year-old
sister, E. E has retaliated with a Stunning Spell that missed D and hit
a Muggle motorist, who smashed into a lamppost.
a. Department of Magical Accidents & Catastrophes
b. Department of Magical Accidents & Catastrophes
and Obliviator Squad
c. Department of Magical Accidents & Catastrophes,
Obliviator Squad and Improper Use of Magic
Office
d. Department of Magical Accidents & Catastrophes,
Obliviator Squad, Improper Use of Magic
Office and Wizengamot
Commentary:
Steve: We have Underage Wizardry involved, since D was 16. That
means that the Improper Use of Magic Office will have to be consulted.
Since a Muggle was injured, the Magical Accidents & Catastrophes would
handle it, and the Obliviators will probably be necessary to erase the
memory of the Muggle. The Wizaengamot typically doesn't get involved with
matters of underage wizardry. Dumbledore, at Harry's trial, points out
how unusual it is for the Wizengamot to hear that particular case:
'Of course they can,' said Dumbledore, inclining his head.
'And vou certainly seem to be making many changes, Cornelius. Why, in the
few short weeks since I was asked to leave the Wizengamot, it has already
become the practice to hold a full criminal trial to deal with a simple
matter of underage magic!'
Some time later, Arthur exclaimed in surprise when he realized that
Harry's simple hearing had been before the high court:
'Merlin's beard!' exclaimed Mr Weasley wonderingly, pulling
Harry aside to let them all pass. 'You were tried by the full court?'
However, since E fired off a spell which injured a Muggle, they might
step in with punishment. It's unclear in the canon how serious an offense
needs to be in order to involve the Wizengamot.
4. Your Friends wizard A and wizard B are in dispute over which of them
owns a field in which Mooncalfs
dance periodically. A accuses B of using nightly a
Summoning
Charm to collect the precious Mooncalf dung which is rightfully A's.
a. Improper use of Magic Office
b. Wizengamot
c. Pest Advisory Board
d. Improper Use of Magic Office and Wizengamot
e. Improper Use of Magic Office and Pest Advisory
Board
f. Wizengamot and Pest Advisory Board
Commentary:
Steve: Mooncalfs are mentioned in Fantastic Beasts and Where
To Find Them. These creatures are not the key to this problem, however,
rather the accusation that B is supposedly using a Summoning Charm to steal
something. Since it's not a creature issue, the Pest Advisory Board would
not be involved at all. The Improper Use of Magic Office would, certainly,
and if the charges prove true, the Wizengamot would try the case.
Belinda: This question has me wondering if it is the responsibility
of the reporting person to notify all the relevant agencies, or if by simply
notifying the Misuse of Magic Office they would refer charges up to the
Wizengamot. I tend to think that ordinary folks wouldn't call the Wizengamot,
that it is more an upper level of law enforcement, like our Court systems.
5. Witch F fed love potion
to a Muggle man, who has married her. When you went around with a wedding
gift you discovered that she is using him as an occasional table.
a. Auror office
b. Misuse of Magic Office
c. Obliviators
d. Wizengamot
e. All of the above
f. None of the above
Commentary:
Steve: Using a Love Potion on a Muggle would almost certainly fall
under the jurisdiction of the Misuse of Magic office. It's possible that
the Obliviators would need to modify the Muggle's memory, but the Auror
Office would definitely not be involved--they're Dark wizard catchers,
after all. So it's most likely that the answer is b.
Belinda: Let's assume that the "Misuse of Magic Office" is the same
as the "Improper Use of Magic Office" (I think Jo was confusing the names
of two departments here, Misuse of Muggle Artifacts and Improper Use of
Magic.) As in the question above, would notifying this office result
in their calling upon the other departments as needed, the Obliviators
for example? I also wonder if this kind of magic is considered Dark
Magic and Aurors would be warranted. I may be over-reacting,
but I would like to think I would recognise the Dark Arts and would act
quickly to apprehend a Dark Witch. Sorry Steve, I'd call the Aurors,
and probably all of the above.
6. Which of the following should be most SEVERELY punished by the Wizengamot?
a. The injury of three Muggles due to a poorly performed
Forgetfulness Charm
b. The death of a chicken due to a poorly aimed
Bat-Bogey Hex
c. The use of the Cruciatus curse on a shark about
to attack a Muggle
d. The use of the Imperious curse on a Muggle mugger
Commentary:
Steve: We have two
Unforgivable
Curses being used here. The other two examples are probably not as
serious. One Unforgivable Curse is being used on a shark and to protect
a Muggle, so it's almost certainly legal. The other is a bit more problematic.
Is someone's life in danger? What actions did the Curse force on the Muggle?
There is no clear cut correct answer to this one, but the use of the Imperious
Curse seems to be the most glaring violation. Surely there would have been
other ways to subdue or escape from a Muggle.
Belinda: The Unforgivable Curses we are told are unforgivable and
result in life imprisonment if used on a human being. Perhaps it's not
as serious an offense when used on animals, since Crouch/Moody uses them
on the spiders in DADA class. In the situation with the Muggle mugger,
surely use of an Unforgivable is not warranted, even if a life is in danger.
I'd say it was still illegal, and the worst offense.
7. Which of the following should receive the LIGHTEST punishment from
the Wizengamot?
a. Horns created accidentally on a culprit's mother,
caused by broken wand
b. Jellylegs
Jinx performed on threatening Muggle
c. Breeding fanged Puffskeins
d. Underage witch performs Cleaning Charms in privacy
of own home
Commentary:
Steve: The first choice clearly is an accident. Should there be
any punishment at all? The other three are all violations of various rules
and regulations. However, the reference to fanged Puffskeins makes one
wonder whether Fred and George had permission to create
Pygmy
Puffs. Just because they're harmless doesn't make them legal...does
it? I suppose they might not have invented them, though.
Belinda: I think the important issue in the Puffskeins answer is
that they are fanged. This would involve experimental charms or cross breeding
and would make them dangerous, which normal Puffskeins are not.
I wonder about the broken wand in answer A. Let's examine
what we know about broken wands. Could it be wrong, or illegal to
"use" a broken wand? Probably not, since Ron is not remanded for
having Spellotaped his, but snapping one's wand in two is the ultimate
punishment. Hagrid hides his in his umbrella and conceals that he
uses it, but the fact that he HAS the pieces is curious. Was he allowed
to keep them? Why wasn't it destroyed completely? hmmm.
For answer D, why would the Wizengamot even assign punishment for
this? They aren't usually involved in Underage magic use. (See question
#3)
8. Which of the following does NOT require a Ministry of Magic license?
a. Crup
ownership
b. Sale
of magical artefacts
c. House-elf
ownership
d. Apparition
Commentary:
Steve: According to Fantastic
Beasts and Where to Find Them, one needs a license to own a Crup.
We've seen the lead-up to the students getting Apparition licenses. There
are all sorts of rules and regulations about selling magical items. No
mention is made of needing a license to own a house-elf. They seem to be
more or less inherited with big old
wizarding houses.
9. Which of the following wizarding laws, in your view, stands in most
urgent need of change?
a. The detection of underage magic in all-magic
households (currently impossible)
b. The ban on goblin
possession of wands (ought to be lifted)
c. The re-classification of centaurs
and merpeople (ought to take their
views into account)
d. The guidelines on house-elf
welfare (need to be enforced)
e. Definitions of 'Muggle-baiting'
(needs to be made less stringent)
Commentary:
Steve: Since the question says "in your view," there can be no incorrect
answer. However, let's look at the choices. The question doesn't ask which
of these laws need changing at all, rather which is in most urgent need
of change. Unfortunately, we don't really know enough about some of these
situations to make a determination. For example, we don't know what the
guidelines on house-elf welfare actually say...this is the first mention
of any such guidelines.
Belinda: I'm with Steve here, that we just don't know enough about
these laws. So I based my answer on how important these issues seem
to be to the characters in canon, and whom they matter to. Hermione
of course, is very up-in-arms over Elfish Welfare, and we see Lucius Malfoy
mistreat Dobby. but does that indicate that the rest of the wizarding world
has issues with this topic? The Centaurs and merpeople seem to not care
about their reclassification, content to ignore humans. We see that
Underage use of Magic is not accurately detected even in non-magical households,
so probably not such an urgent issue. But why exactly are Goblins not allowed
to have wands? Was it the action of a few untrustworthy individuals
that led to an unjust enactment of this law centuries ago, and lifting
it could prove to be a benefit to society? In OP7 Arthur, Bill and Lupin
are discussing which side the goblins would take,
"It depends what they're offered," said Lupin. "And
I'm not talking about gold; if they're offered freedoms we've been denying
them for centuries they're going to be tempted."
Perhaps this will prove important to fighting You-know-who, in which
case it may be urgent?
I would think that Muggle-baiting guidelines would only be important
to unscrupulous wizards, and therefore making them less stringent, not
urgent at all (eek).
PART TWO
Magical Transport
(Points available: 28 out of a possible 100)
RESOURCES FOR THIS SECTION:
Transportation
MoM- Department
of Magical Transportation
MoM-Rules and Regulations
10. Which mode of transportation would
you advise for a young mother traveling with one-year-old twins with a
low boredom threshold, her grandmother, who suffers from severe motion
sickness, and her husband, who has never mastered the three 'D's?
a. Apparition
b. Broomsticks
c. Floo Powder
d. Knight Bus
e. Portkey
Commentary:
Steve: Whoa, this is a mess. Let's see...we don't know if it's possible
to do Side-Along Apparition with that many people, so we can't be sure
if that's even an option. Broomsticks would be out of the question with
the one-year-old twins. The Knight Bus would certainly not suit the grandmother.
Floo Powder requires that the traveler be able to say the destination clearly
and the twins wouldn't be able to do that...but can a parent hold a small
child in their arms while they use the Floo network? We don't know. The
Portkey might be workable, providing that the grandmother can stand the
short amount of wild motion and that the twins would touch the portkey
when they're supposed to.
Belinda: I too wonder about Side-Along Apparition. Can more than
one person be included? I tend to think it might be a one-to-one ratio
per Apparition license. Perhaps the grandmother is capable of transporting
the husband, but that would leave Mom with both twins. Nice if it
works, but probably unlikely.
We know that brooms can be equipped with devices for carrying loads,
perhaps they can have child seats like a bicycle? This may still
be problematic for the boredom threshold on a long journey, but not make
them out of the question necessarily. The portkey requires special permission
to use, so would be inconvenient for frequent travel. But it might work
for a one-time long distance trip if, as Steve says, the twins are capable
of holding on. I'd certainly avoid the Knight Bus with motion sick
granny. So Floo Powder seems logical, if Mom and Dad can each bring
along a child. We know that folks can bring sacks and items with
them, since the Weasleys go shopping this way, perhaps the small children
can be carried as well.
11. Which of the following unorthodox means of transportation
is considered the most serious breach of the International
Statue* of Secrecy?
a. Thestrals
b. Abraxan
horse-drawn giant carriage
c. Hippogriff
d. Flying Muggle vehicle (eg, car,
motorcycle)
e. Underwater
ship
Commentary:
Steve: Any of them could be, but the reason is not the means of
transport but the actions the wizard might or might not take to hide what
needs to be hidden. I think we can assume that the giant carriage was in
some way hidden from Muggle eyes. Disillusionment charms are required for
some magical creatures. The flying Muggle vehicle, however, is very possibly
a breach of a separate law against enchanting Muggle Artifacts. We don't
know for sure whether Sirius's motorbike was illegal, and Arthur's car
was only legal because of a loophole he personally wrote into that law.
Belinda: *note that this is a typo on the exam , not by us.
We assume that it should read Statute. (and that it is not a trick question,
or referring to a replacement for the demolished Fountain of Magical Brethren.)
Which mode(s) of transportation could
you use to reach/enter each of the following wizarding institutions?(Questions
12 - 16)
12. Azkaban
a. Brooms
b. Brooms/Floo
Powder
c. Brooms/Knight Bus
d. Brooms/Floo powder/Knight Bus
e. Brooms/Floo powder/Knight Bus/Apparition
Commentary:
Steve: Azkaban is located in the far north of the North Sea. We
are not told if it's Unplottable or if it's possible to Apparate into it.
We do know that the Knight Bus won't go anywhere underwater, though, so
there's no way to get to Azkaban by that means. We also don't know if Azkaban
is hooked up to the Floo Network. We simply don't have enough information
to be completely sure about the answer to this one.
13. Gringotts
a. Brooms
b. Brooms/Floo
Powder
c. Brooms/Knight Bus
d. Brooms/Floo powder/Knight Bus
e. Brooms/Floo powder/Knight Bus/Apparition
Commentary:
Steve: Gringotts is located in Diagon Alley. We have seen people
come to Diagon Alley by Floo Powder and by Knight Bus. At no point are
we told that folks can't apparate into Diagon Alley.
14. Hogwarts
a. Brooms
b. Brooms/Floo
Powder
c. Brooms/Knight Bus
d. Brooms/Floo powder/Knight Bus
e. Brooms/Floo powder/Knight Bus/Apparition
Commentary:
Steve: Well, Apparition is out if you want to get into Hogwarts
itself. However, we've seen people Apparate away from the school just outside
the front gate, so we have to consider it as possible. We've seen people
use every other method mentioned in this question as well, although the
connection to the Floo Network was temporary.
15. Ministry of Magic
a. Brooms
b. Brooms/Floo
Powder
c. Brooms/Knight Bus
d. Brooms/Floo powder/Knight Bus
e. Brooms/Floo powder/Knight Bus/Apparition
Commentary:
Steve: Arthur says that he usually Apparates to work, so it
must be possible. There doesn't seem to be any reason why the Knight Bus
couldn't get someone to the street above the Ministry, and the Atrium is
lined with fireplaces for people to Floo into work.
16. St. Mungos
a. Brooms
b. Brooms/Floo
Powder
c. Brooms/Knight Bus
d. Brooms/Floo powder/Knight Bus
e. Brooms/Floo powder/Knight Bus/Apparition
Commentary:
Steve: Pretty much the same as for the Ministry, since it's located
in central London as well.
Belinda: But are there Floo Network fireplaces in the vicinity of
St.Mungo's that one could use? I would guess that in muggle London, this
would not be feasible. Also there may be an anti-Apparition charm on St.Mungo's
too, to prevent patients and visitors from coming and going indiscriminately.
(Imagine someone Apparating into or out of the Closed Ward?) I'd lean toward
answer C on this one.
PART THREE
Everyday Magic
(Points available: 20 out of a possible 100)
RESOURCES FOR THIS SECTION:
Encyclopedia of Spells
Encyclopedia of Potions
Magical and Mundane Plants
17. Which of the following would, in your opinion, provide the best
security for a convention of broomstick salesmen in a large, Firebolt-shaped
marquee?
a. Fidelius
Charm
b. Muggle-repelling
Charm
c. Confundus
Charm
d. Disillusionment
Charm
e. Unplottable
marquee
f. Forgetfulness Charm
g. Giant
three-headed dog
Commentary:
Steve: A marquee is a large tent, remember. A Muggle-Repelling charm
would be useful, certainly. A Disillusionment Charm wouldn't be amiss either.
There is nothing to suggest that making a place Unplottable makes it invisible
to Muggles. The Fidelius Charm, on the other hand, does make the building
disappear, so that might be a good choice. It should be noted that until
now there was no mention in canon of a Forgetfulness Charm. There is a
potion, and there is the spell to modify memory, but no Forgetfulness Charm.
Belinda: The Fidelius charm poses the problem of a single person
needing to tell all the wizards how to find the place. The Confundus
charm could confuse the attendees, as might the Forgetfulness charm. A
giant three-headed dog would be foolhardy of course, though probably effective!
Dissillusionment would camouflage the marquis, but not the comings and
goings of the salesmen. Since the question does not allow for a combination
of answers, I'd opt for the Muggle-repelling Charm.
18. Which of the following should not be used in cooking?
a. Alihotsy
leaves
b. Bubotuber
pus
c. Daisy
roots
d. Dragon
Blood
e. Mandrake
Leaves
f. Murtlap
tentacles
g. Shrake
Commentary:
Steve: Tough one. We don't know enough about any of these ingredients
to judge properly, but we do know some facts worth consideing:
-
Alihotsy causes hysteria.
-
Bubotuber pus is not mentioned as edible or inedible, so it might be
used in cooking even though it's digusting.
-
Daisy roots are non-magical but the foliage and flowers are poisonous...the
roots might be just fine.
-
Dragon blood has twelve uses, including oven cleaner. It sounds like
it would be a rather inedible sort of substance, but who knows.
-
Mandrakes are dangerous, of course, but we don't know anything about
their leaves.
-
Murtlap tentacles were used by Fred and George as ingredients in their
sweets.
-
A shrake is a fish...magical, true, but just a fish.
Belinda: Daisy roots are mundane but are an ingredient in Shrinking
Solutions. Since we learn that errors in making this potion can cause it
to become poisonous, this implies that done properly, it is not. So perhaps
they are safe.
19. Which of the following would most effectively clean up a spillage
of
wart cap powder?
a. Deletrius
b. Diffindo
c. Episkey
d. Evanesco
e. Scourgify
f. Tergeo
g. Mrs.
Skower's All-Purpose Magical Mess Remover
Commentary:
Steve: We'll have to guess again on this one. Some can be ruled
out because they have nothing to do with cleaning. Evanesco, Scourgify,
Tergeo, and Mrs. Skower's All-Purpose Mess Remover could all be helpful,
though. Evanesco might not be the best choice, though, since it only makes
things disappear. Tergeo seems likely, since it actually vacuums things
up.
Belinda: I would be leery of using anything that could result in
accidentally touching the wart-cap powder, since we know it causes a nasty
skin condition. I would guess that Mrs. Skower's would be a kind of cleanser,
and mixed with the powder could be either a good result, or very dangerous.
20. A Doxy bite can be
healed most quickly and safely using
a. Bubotuber
pus
b. Bundimun
secretion
c. Dittany
d. Dr.
Ubbly's Oblivious Unction
e. Murtlap
essence
f. Reparo
g. Skele-Gro
h. Spellotape
Commentary:
Steve: None of these are specifically noted for being good for Doxy
bites...or any bites at all. However, we can eliminate some choices. Murtlap
essense certainly helped Harry's sore hand after he had to write lines
for Umbridge, so that might be a good choice.
Belinda: In OP6Mrs.
Weasley has a bottle of antidote handy while they are de-doxy-fying
the drapes. We don't know if this is a purchased product, one of her own
potions, or even a simple solution of one of the answers above, but it
does seem to rule out the use of a spell.
21. Which of the following commonly held wizarding beliefs is actually
true?
a. If an inanimate object appears to think for itself,
Dark Magic has been involved in its creation
b. The use of magic in front of a Muggle is prohibited
unless the witch or wizard is under threat of personal injury
c. Releasing a Portkey before it has arrived will
result in death or serious injury
d. 'Finite
Incantatem' should be used as a precaution when a Muggle rings the
doorbell.
e. Bad luck can be prevented by turning three times
on the spot and deliberately Splinching
one's thumbs.
Commentary:
Steve: The Sorting Hat appears to think for itself, but it's not
associated with Dark Magic (that we know of). This is clearly a reference
to Arthur's admonition:
"Ginny!" said Mr. Weasley, flabbergasted. "Haven't I taught
you anything? What have I always told you? Never trust anything that can
think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain?" (CS18)
The last choice seems ridiculous, although this is the wizarding world
we're talking about. The use of Finite Incantatem would seem like a good
idea before opening the door to a Muggle and using magic in front of a
Muggle is permissiable under some circumstances. Take your pick, I guess.
Belinda: At Harry's hearing in OP8, when his charges are read, they
include the statement "in the presence of a Muggle" as well as the charges
against underage restrictions, and further on refers to "section thirteen
of the International Confederation of Wizards' Statute of Secrecy".
I assume this must be what this section regulates, making the use of magic
in front of a Muggle illegal. Both Lupin and Hermione mention a provision
allowing for "even underage wizards to use magic in life-threatening situations".
PART FOUR
The Natural World
(Points available: 16 out of a possible 100)
RESOURCES FOR THIS SECTION:
Herbology
Bestiary
22. Which of the following small creatures would you CHOOSE to accompany
you on a perilous journey?
a. Augurey
b. Crup
c. Jarvey
d. Kneazle
e. Murtlap
f. Niffler
g. Runespoor
Commentary:
Steve: Some of these creatures simply wouldn't make good companions,
no matter what. The Augurey would just be depressing to have around, although
you would know when it was going to rain. Only the Crup and the Kneazle
seem like the kinds of creatures one would keep as a pet (well, okay, so
Dark wizards like to keep Runespoors, but that doesn't really count) and
each has some advantages. Kneazles can detect unsavory or suspicious people.
The Crup is loyal to wizards and hostile to Muggles, which may or may not
be a good thing. The fact that 'CHOOSE' is highlighted suggests that some
of these creatures might come along of their own accord. The Jarvey and
the Runespoor might do this. However, neither would be a particularly good
traveling companion. Once again, take your pick.
Belinda: The kneazle is known to have the ability to detect suspicious
or unsavory characters, which I would find comforting, and its ability
to lead its master safely home if lost, could be a truly useful skill.
23. Which of the Following is NOT listed as a pest by the Pest Advisory
Board?
a. Bundimun
b. Chizpurfle
c. Doxy
d. Gnome
e. Horklump
f. Knarl
g. Pixie
Commentary:
Steve: They're all annoying. It's tough to guess which one would
not be considered a pest. However, the question asks which one is not listed
as such by the Pest Advisory Board. Certainly the Bundimun, Chizpurfle,
Doxy, Gnome, and Horklump are pests. The Knarl wrecks garden plants (and
uses very bad language). So we're left with Pixies, which are at least
as annoying as the others, but which don't necessarily damage gardens or
houses. Pixie seems the most likely to be correct.
Belinda: I was inclined to think Pixies too, Steve, but their aggressive
and mischievous behavior leads me to think they might be listed as pests.
Knarls on the other hand, don't seem to cause much trouble unless offended,
and Horklumps seem harmless enough, probably only attracting Gnomes. I
also note that Horklumps are the only creature listed with a MoM classification
of X (boring), all the others are XX or XXX.
24. A dog acting in a suspiciously un-canine manner is most likely to
be
a. An Animagus
b. A Boggart
c. A Crup
(or part Crup)
d. A Grim
e. Imperius-ed
f. Magically Trained
g. A Patronous
Commentary:
Steve: My first reaction was to choose Crup, but on further thought
I realized that a Crup pretty much acts like a dog. When Sirius was transformed
into his Animagus form, he did act non-canine to some extent, but pretty
much acted like a dog too. A dog Patronus, on the other hand, is glowing
and doesn't touch the ground. That sounds pretty non-canine to me. At least
I've never seen my dog do that.
Belinda: My thinking on this one was to the commonness of each. How
common are Animagi and Patronuses? are Grims real? and a boggart wouldn't
appear as a dog unless a "suspicious acting dog" were your worst fear.
I think I'd suspect magical training first, even though I don't know how
that would be accomplished.
25. Which of the following plants has NO curative, restorative or protective
properties?
a. Alihotsy
shrub
b. Belladonna
c. Bubotuber
d. Snargaluff tree
e. Venomous Tentacula
f. Wolfsbane
g. Whomping
Willow
Commentary:
Steve: This is yet another tricky question. We just don't know whether
some of these qualify. On the other hand, the Whomping Willow would seem
to be the odd plant out on this list. If you could get close enough to
gather some of the bark, would its bark have similar properties to that
of our Muggle variety willow? And am I right in thinking that the name
of the Venomous Tentacula suggests that it's, well, venomous? We just don't
know enough to answer this one for certain.
Belinda: ... and what IS a
Snargaluff tree, anyway?
Steve: It's in Half-Blood Prince, Bel.
Chapter 14. We just
missed getting it into the Lexicon, I'm afraid.
Belinda: Oh! Yes, silly me. How could I forget that? Well, I suppose
we could say it might have some of those properties... look what it did
for Ron and Hermione!
|