Verbal Ability ...

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

The idea that police are the only answer to preventing crime and protecting people is one that has been so ingrained into American society that it can be hard to imagine a different reality. But amid a national uprising against police brutality and systemic racism, activists say it’s time to reimagine what the public actually needs.

The U.S. spends more than $100 billion on policing per year. For many major cities, police department budgets make up a disproportionate amount of overall spending, even as other departments face steep cuts amid the coronavirus. Now, that spending is coming under scrutiny.

“People across the country are ready for a defunding framework,” says Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of Black Lives Matter and founder of Reform LA Jails. “We’re ready to chip away at the line items inside of a police budget that really are nonsensical. Police should not be in charge of mental health crises. They should not be in charge of dealing with homelessness. They should not be in charge of ‘supporting’ people with drug dependency and addiction. Those are three line items which we can cut out of the police budget and then put that back into health care.”

In Washington, Mayor Muriel Bowser has painted a Black Lives Matter mural on streets near the White House and rechristened an intersection as Black Lives Matter Plaza. Activists have been critical of the mayor’s proposed cuts to programs like the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement, noting she has proposed budget increases to the police department.

The proposed restrictions vary by city. In Charlotte, city council member Braxton Winston has introduced a motion that would prohibit money from being spent on chemical agents used to disperse crowds and protesters, while creating a police oversight committee made up of the city council and city manager to review the department’s spending. “There’s always been a political ability to make these changes,” Winston says. “It just seems that we may be in a moment where people that are in positions like mine are finally getting the political will.”

State officials are also hearing these demands. The Minnesota Legislature’s People of Color and Indigenous Caucus suggested policy changes, including funding “community-based intervenors and problem-solvers that can partner with local peace officers.” And in Colorado, Democrats in the state senate introduced a police accountability proposal aimed at increasing transparency. But there are few if any specific proposals currently being proposed on the state level to defund the police; much of the energy is currently on the local and federal levels.

Congress is under pressure to do something. One letter from more than 200 activists, elected officials, and other community leaders called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to defund the police, urging them to funnel money that a recent coronavirus-response bill allocated to law enforcement to other emergency response instead.

Democrats are expected to reveal a sweeping police reform bill next week aimed at tackling systemic racism. The New York Times reported that among the proposals currently included in a draft are banning chokeholds and tracking police misconduct with a national registry. It’s unclear, however, whether the legislation will include anything that cuts federal funds.

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

The idea that police are the only answer to preventing crime and protecting people is one that has been so ingrained into American society that it can be hard to imagine a different reality. But amid a national uprising against police brutality and systemic racism, activists say it’s time to reimagine what the public actually needs.

The U.S. spends more than $100 billion on policing per year. For many major cities, police department budgets make up a disproportionate amount of overall spending, even as other departments face steep cuts amid the coronavirus. Now, that spending is coming under scrutiny.

“People across the country are ready for a defunding framework,” says Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of Black Lives Matter and founder of Reform LA Jails. “We’re ready to chip away at the line items inside of a police budget that really are nonsensical. Police should not be in charge of mental health crises. They should not be in charge of dealing with homelessness. They should not be in charge of ‘supporting’ people with drug dependency and addiction. Those are three line items which we can cut out of the police budget and then put that back into health care.”

In Washington, Mayor Muriel Bowser has painted a Black Lives Matter mural on streets near the White House and rechristened an intersection as Black Lives Matter Plaza. Activists have been critical of the mayor’s proposed cuts to programs like the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement, noting she has proposed budget increases to the police department.

The proposed restrictions vary by city. In Charlotte, city council member Braxton Winston has introduced a motion that would prohibit money from being spent on chemical agents used to disperse crowds and protesters, while creating a police oversight committee made up of the city council and city manager to review the department’s spending. “There’s always been a political ability to make these changes,” Winston says. “It just seems that we may be in a moment where people that are in positions like mine are finally getting the political will.”

State officials are also hearing these demands. The Minnesota Legislature’s People of Color and Indigenous Caucus suggested policy changes, including funding “community-based intervenors and problem-solvers that can partner with local peace officers.” And in Colorado, Democrats in the state senate introduced a police accountability proposal aimed at increasing transparency. But there are few if any specific proposals currently being proposed on the state level to defund the police; much of the energy is currently on the local and federal levels.

Congress is under pressure to do something. One letter from more than 200 activists, elected officials, and other community leaders called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to defund the police, urging them to funnel money that a recent coronavirus-response bill allocated to law enforcement to other emergency response instead.

Democrats are expected to reveal a sweeping police reform bill next week aimed at tackling systemic racism. The New York Times reported that among the proposals currently included in a draft are banning chokeholds and tracking police misconduct with a national registry. It’s unclear, however, whether the legislation will include anything that cuts federal funds.

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

The idea that police are the only answer to preventing crime and protecting people is one that has been so ingrained into American society that it can be hard to imagine a different reality. But amid a national uprising against police brutality and systemic racism, activists say it’s time to reimagine what the public actually needs.

The U.S. spends more than $100 billion on policing per year. For many major cities, police department budgets make up a disproportionate amount of overall spending, even as other departments face steep cuts amid the coronavirus. Now, that spending is coming under scrutiny.

“People across the country are ready for a defunding framework,” says Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of Black Lives Matter and founder of Reform LA Jails. “We’re ready to chip away at the line items inside of a police budget that really are nonsensical. Police should not be in charge of mental health crises. They should not be in charge of dealing with homelessness. They should not be in charge of ‘supporting’ people with drug dependency and addiction. Those are three line items which we can cut out of the police budget and then put that back into health care.”

In Washington, Mayor Muriel Bowser has painted a Black Lives Matter mural on streets near the White House and rechristened an intersection as Black Lives Matter Plaza. Activists have been critical of the mayor’s proposed cuts to programs like the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement, noting she has proposed budget increases to the police department.

The proposed restrictions vary by city. In Charlotte, city council member Braxton Winston has introduced a motion that would prohibit money from being spent on chemical agents used to disperse crowds and protesters, while creating a police oversight committee made up of the city council and city manager to review the department’s spending. “There’s always been a political ability to make these changes,” Winston says. “It just seems that we may be in a moment where people that are in positions like mine are finally getting the political will.”

State officials are also hearing these demands. The Minnesota Legislature’s People of Color and Indigenous Caucus suggested policy changes, including funding “community-based intervenors and problem-solvers that can partner with local peace officers.” And in Colorado, Democrats in the state senate introduced a police accountability proposal aimed at increasing transparency. But there are few if any specific proposals currently being proposed on the state level to defund the police; much of the energy is currently on the local and federal levels.

Congress is under pressure to do something. One letter from more than 200 activists, elected officials, and other community leaders called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to defund the police, urging them to funnel money that a recent coronavirus-response bill allocated to law enforcement to other emergency response instead.

Democrats are expected to reveal a sweeping police reform bill next week aimed at tackling systemic racism. The New York Times reported that among the proposals currently included in a draft are banning chokeholds and tracking police misconduct with a national registry. It’s unclear, however, whether the legislation will include anything that cuts federal funds.

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

The idea that police are the only answer to preventing crime and protecting people is one that has been so ingrained into American society that it can be hard to imagine a different reality. But amid a national uprising against police brutality and systemic racism, activists say it’s time to reimagine what the public actually needs.

The U.S. spends more than $100 billion on policing per year. For many major cities, police department budgets make up a disproportionate amount of overall spending, even as other departments face steep cuts amid the coronavirus. Now, that spending is coming under scrutiny.

“People across the country are ready for a defunding framework,” says Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of Black Lives Matter and founder of Reform LA Jails. “We’re ready to chip away at the line items inside of a police budget that really are nonsensical. Police should not be in charge of mental health crises. They should not be in charge of dealing with homelessness. They should not be in charge of ‘supporting’ people with drug dependency and addiction. Those are three line items which we can cut out of the police budget and then put that back into health care.”

In Washington, Mayor Muriel Bowser has painted a Black Lives Matter mural on streets near the White House and rechristened an intersection as Black Lives Matter Plaza. Activists have been critical of the mayor’s proposed cuts to programs like the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement, noting she has proposed budget increases to the police department.

The proposed restrictions vary by city. In Charlotte, city council member Braxton Winston has introduced a motion that would prohibit money from being spent on chemical agents used to disperse crowds and protesters, while creating a police oversight committee made up of the city council and city manager to review the department’s spending. “There’s always been a political ability to make these changes,” Winston says. “It just seems that we may be in a moment where people that are in positions like mine are finally getting the political will.”

State officials are also hearing these demands. The Minnesota Legislature’s People of Color and Indigenous Caucus suggested policy changes, including funding “community-based intervenors and problem-solvers that can partner with local peace officers.” And in Colorado, Democrats in the state senate introduced a police accountability proposal aimed at increasing transparency. But there are few if any specific proposals currently being proposed on the state level to defund the police; much of the energy is currently on the local and federal levels.

Congress is under pressure to do something. One letter from more than 200 activists, elected officials, and other community leaders called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to defund the police, urging them to funnel money that a recent coronavirus-response bill allocated to law enforcement to other emergency response instead.

Democrats are expected to reveal a sweeping police reform bill next week aimed at tackling systemic racism. The New York Times reported that among the proposals currently included in a draft are banning chokeholds and tracking police misconduct with a national registry. It’s unclear, however, whether the legislation will include anything that cuts federal funds.

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

Watching a clip from The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, reportedly influenced audience members’ beliefs about climate change. Viewers who saw Jon Stewart say that global warming is real came away more certain that climate change is happening. Colbert’s show had a similar effect, even though some viewers misinterpreted his deadpan humor and mistook the host for a real climate change doubter.

In a 2015 follow-up study, we found that late-night humor can influence how viewers perceive climate science itself. This time, we tested the effects of a Last Week Tonight segment in which host John Oliver and guest Bill Nye hold a “statistically representative climate change debate” to illustrate the scientific consensus on the issue. Their “debate” shows Nye and 96 other scientists drowning out three global warming doubters. Watching this segment swayed study participants to see scientists as believing in human-caused climate change—which, in turn, bolstered participants’ own certainty that global warming is happening. The effect was strongest among those least interested in science.

Late-night hosts have also derided groups that, for example, cite a single discredited study to blame autism on vaccines, or push for teaching creationism in public schools despite the mountain of evidence for evolution. Kimmel has skewered fears about genetically modified foods by showing anti-GMO produce shoppers struggle to explain on camera what the acronym means. And on a Full Frontal episode, a skit depicted fictional high school students mocking anti-vaxxers’ claims (“Wow, you make vaccinations sound so cool; maybe it is bad to get diseases from the Middle Ages”). The 2016 poll that Paul conducted with Barbara Ley found that late-night viewers were more likely than nonviewers to agree with scientists on both GMOs and vaccines, even after accounting for many other factors that also shape science attitudes.

Late-night humor may be particularly effective at debunking scientific misconceptions because it avoids triggering the backlash that traditional science communication efforts can elicit. And late-night humor can spark science engagement as well. A national survey by researchers Lauren Feldman, Anthony Leiserowitz, and Edward Maibach found that watching satirical comedy programs went hand in hand with paying more attention to science stories. Furthermore, the researchers concluded that satirical shows had the biggest impact among the least educated viewers, thereby helping to narrow a gap in attention to science.

Though late-night satirical humor can boost science interest and awareness, it has its limits. Science is complex, and conveying that complexity in a few minutes while cracking jokes can be a challenge.

At its best, late-night satire encourages viewers not only to follow science but also to think critically about it. An episode of Last Week Tonight made that point with a poke at how news outlets cover scientific studies. Host John Oliver warned against “thinking that science is à la carte and if you don’t like one study, don’t worry, another will be along soon.” He ridiculed media coverage of science that oversimplifies and sensationalizes findings, misuses statistics, and cherry-picks results. The members of his audience may be laughing, but they seem to be learning as well.

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

Watching a clip from The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, reportedly influenced audience members’ beliefs about climate change. Viewers who saw Jon Stewart say that global warming is real came away more certain that climate change is happening. Colbert’s show had a similar effect, even though some viewers misinterpreted his deadpan humor and mistook the host for a real climate change doubter.

In a 2015 follow-up study, we found that late-night humor can influence how viewers perceive climate science itself. This time, we tested the effects of a Last Week Tonight segment in which host John Oliver and guest Bill Nye hold a “statistically representative climate change debate” to illustrate the scientific consensus on the issue. Their “debate” shows Nye and 96 other scientists drowning out three global warming doubters. Watching this segment swayed study participants to see scientists as believing in human-caused climate change—which, in turn, bolstered participants’ own certainty that global warming is happening. The effect was strongest among those least interested in science.

Late-night hosts have also derided groups that, for example, cite a single discredited study to blame autism on vaccines, or push for teaching creationism in public schools despite the mountain of evidence for evolution. Kimmel has skewered fears about genetically modified foods by showing anti-GMO produce shoppers struggle to explain on camera what the acronym means. And on a Full Frontal episode, a skit depicted fictional high school students mocking anti-vaxxers’ claims (“Wow, you make vaccinations sound so cool; maybe it is bad to get diseases from the Middle Ages”). The 2016 poll that Paul conducted with Barbara Ley found that late-night viewers were more likely than nonviewers to agree with scientists on both GMOs and vaccines, even after accounting for many other factors that also shape science attitudes.

Late-night humor may be particularly effective at debunking scientific misconceptions because it avoids triggering the backlash that traditional science communication efforts can elicit. And late-night humor can spark science engagement as well. A national survey by researchers Lauren Feldman, Anthony Leiserowitz, and Edward Maibach found that watching satirical comedy programs went hand in hand with paying more attention to science stories. Furthermore, the researchers concluded that satirical shows had the biggest impact among the least educated viewers, thereby helping to narrow a gap in attention to science.

Though late-night satirical humor can boost science interest and awareness, it has its limits. Science is complex, and conveying that complexity in a few minutes while cracking jokes can be a challenge.

At its best, late-night satire encourages viewers not only to follow science but also to think critically about it. An episode of Last Week Tonight made that point with a poke at how news outlets cover scientific studies. Host John Oliver warned against “thinking that science is à la carte and if you don’t like one study, don’t worry, another will be along soon.” He ridiculed media coverage of science that oversimplifies and sensationalizes findings, misuses statistics, and cherry-picks results. The members of his audience may be laughing, but they seem to be learning as well.

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

Watching a clip from The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, reportedly influenced audience members’ beliefs about climate change. Viewers who saw Jon Stewart say that global warming is real came away more certain that climate change is happening. Colbert’s show had a similar effect, even though some viewers misinterpreted his deadpan humor and mistook the host for a real climate change doubter.

In a 2015 follow-up study, we found that late-night humor can influence how viewers perceive climate science itself. This time, we tested the effects of a Last Week Tonight segment in which host John Oliver and guest Bill Nye hold a “statistically representative climate change debate” to illustrate the scientific consensus on the issue. Their “debate” shows Nye and 96 other scientists drowning out three global warming doubters. Watching this segment swayed study participants to see scientists as believing in human-caused climate change—which, in turn, bolstered participants’ own certainty that global warming is happening. The effect was strongest among those least interested in science.

Late-night hosts have also derided groups that, for example, cite a single discredited study to blame autism on vaccines, or push for teaching creationism in public schools despite the mountain of evidence for evolution. Kimmel has skewered fears about genetically modified foods by showing anti-GMO produce shoppers struggle to explain on camera what the acronym means. And on a Full Frontal episode, a skit depicted fictional high school students mocking anti-vaxxers’ claims (“Wow, you make vaccinations sound so cool; maybe it is bad to get diseases from the Middle Ages”). The 2016 poll that Paul conducted with Barbara Ley found that late-night viewers were more likely than nonviewers to agree with scientists on both GMOs and vaccines, even after accounting for many other factors that also shape science attitudes.

Late-night humor may be particularly effective at debunking scientific misconceptions because it avoids triggering the backlash that traditional science communication efforts can elicit. And late-night humor can spark science engagement as well. A national survey by researchers Lauren Feldman, Anthony Leiserowitz, and Edward Maibach found that watching satirical comedy programs went hand in hand with paying more attention to science stories. Furthermore, the researchers concluded that satirical shows had the biggest impact among the least educated viewers, thereby helping to narrow a gap in attention to science.

Though late-night satirical humor can boost science interest and awareness, it has its limits. Science is complex, and conveying that complexity in a few minutes while cracking jokes can be a challenge.

At its best, late-night satire encourages viewers not only to follow science but also to think critically about it. An episode of Last Week Tonight made that point with a poke at how news outlets cover scientific studies. Host John Oliver warned against “thinking that science is à la carte and if you don’t like one study, don’t worry, another will be along soon.” He ridiculed media coverage of science that oversimplifies and sensationalizes findings, misuses statistics, and cherry-picks results. The members of his audience may be laughing, but they seem to be learning as well.

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

Watching a clip from The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, reportedly influenced audience members’ beliefs about climate change. Viewers who saw Jon Stewart say that global warming is real came away more certain that climate change is happening. Colbert’s show had a similar effect, even though some viewers misinterpreted his deadpan humor and mistook the host for a real climate change doubter.

In a 2015 follow-up study, we found that late-night humor can influence how viewers perceive climate science itself. This time, we tested the effects of a Last Week Tonight segment in which host John Oliver and guest Bill Nye hold a “statistically representative climate change debate” to illustrate the scientific consensus on the issue. Their “debate” shows Nye and 96 other scientists drowning out three global warming doubters. Watching this segment swayed study participants to see scientists as believing in human-caused climate change—which, in turn, bolstered participants’ own certainty that global warming is happening. The effect was strongest among those least interested in science.

Late-night hosts have also derided groups that, for example, cite a single discredited study to blame autism on vaccines, or push for teaching creationism in public schools despite the mountain of evidence for evolution. Kimmel has skewered fears about genetically modified foods by showing anti-GMO produce shoppers struggle to explain on camera what the acronym means. And on a Full Frontal episode, a skit depicted fictional high school students mocking anti-vaxxers’ claims (“Wow, you make vaccinations sound so cool; maybe it is bad to get diseases from the Middle Ages”). The 2016 poll that Paul conducted with Barbara Ley found that late-night viewers were more likely than nonviewers to agree with scientists on both GMOs and vaccines, even after accounting for many other factors that also shape science attitudes.

Late-night humor may be particularly effective at debunking scientific misconceptions because it avoids triggering the backlash that traditional science communication efforts can elicit. And late-night humor can spark science engagement as well. A national survey by researchers Lauren Feldman, Anthony Leiserowitz, and Edward Maibach found that watching satirical comedy programs went hand in hand with paying more attention to science stories. Furthermore, the researchers concluded that satirical shows had the biggest impact among the least educated viewers, thereby helping to narrow a gap in attention to science.

Though late-night satirical humor can boost science interest and awareness, it has its limits. Science is complex, and conveying that complexity in a few minutes while cracking jokes can be a challenge.

At its best, late-night satire encourages viewers not only to follow science but also to think critically about it. An episode of Last Week Tonight made that point with a poke at how news outlets cover scientific studies. Host John Oliver warned against “thinking that science is à la carte and if you don’t like one study, don’t worry, another will be along soon.” He ridiculed media coverage of science that oversimplifies and sensationalizes findings, misuses statistics, and cherry-picks results. The members of his audience may be laughing, but they seem to be learning as well.

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:

From autumn 2018 for about a year, the group known as Extinction Rebellion (XR) staged a number of disruptive protests in the United Kingdom, on London’s bridges and across several city centres, bringing road traffic to a standstill. The protestors were drawing attention to the need for immediate action on the climate emergency. From their perspective, these were acts of resistance, drawing attention to injustice and inaction. What should someone who is sympathetic to this cause and to their action do? If possible, nothing. But there are different ways of doing nothing. It matters that you do nothing in the right way and for the right reasons.

There are at least three negative duties that are generated by the right of resistance: non-interference, non-obstruction and non-collaboration.

The simplest of these is the duty of non-interference. If a person has the right to do something, there is a fundamental duty not to prevent them from doing that thing. So, if a person is enacting their right to resistance, then bystanders have an obligation to forbear and not to interfere. This seems obvious, but there was a rather shocking instance during the London XR protests where this duty was not respected. In October 2019, protestors stopped London trains from working by climbing on top of carriages. At Canning Town in east London, one protestor was dragged off the roof of a carriage and set upon by commuters. This is a violation of the duty of non-interference. It might be that people were angered by having their day disrupted, but this doesn’t excuse their behaviour. It might be irritating but we have an obligation to do nothing.

Yet simply not interfering with individuals is not sufficient. Resistance to injustice is often organised. In addition to the obligation not to interfere with individuals, there must also be a duty of non-obstruction to organisations. In the age of Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook and TikTok, it is easy to inadvertently obstruct organisations fighting injustice. Posting a video or picture on social media could lead to a protestor being identified by the police or to escape routes being closed. We should avoid getting in the way of what those who are performing acts of resistance try to do. Living up to the duty of non-obstruction requires us to be more conscientious about the ways in which we communicate.

The final negative duty is that of non-collaboration with agencies that are suppressing resistance. If we shouldn’t inadvertently obstruct resistance, it follows that we shouldn’t actively help to suppress it. Agencies that are engaged in suppressing resistance often depend upon third-party assistance. As the academic Juan Espíndola found in his research on the German Democratic Republic of 1949-90, the wide network of ‘unofficial coworkers’ who informed on dissidents and provided logistical support to the Stasi were referred to as the state’s ‘respiratory organs’. Without collaboration, unjust regimes suffocate. We might think that we aren’t pressured to collaborate like this today, but one might look at Apple’s decision in 2019 to remove an app that sought to inform prodemocracy protestors in Hong Kong where the police were concentrating and using tear gas. It is possible that, as resistance to climate change grows, ‘liberal democratic’ states might employ similar pressures. The rule is simple: don’t snitch.

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:

From autumn 2018 for about a year, the group known as Extinction Rebellion (XR) staged a number of disruptive protests in the United Kingdom, on London’s bridges and across several city centres, bringing road traffic to a standstill. The protestors were drawing attention to the need for immediate action on the climate emergency. From their perspective, these were acts of resistance, drawing attention to injustice and inaction. What should someone who is sympathetic to this cause and to their action do? If possible, nothing. But there are different ways of doing nothing. It matters that you do nothing in the right way and for the right reasons.

There are at least three negative duties that are generated by the right of resistance: non-interference, non-obstruction and non-collaboration.

The simplest of these is the duty of non-interference. If a person has the right to do something, there is a fundamental duty not to prevent them from doing that thing. So, if a person is enacting their right to resistance, then bystanders have an obligation to forbear and not to interfere. This seems obvious, but there was a rather shocking instance during the London XR protests where this duty was not respected. In October 2019, protestors stopped London trains from working by climbing on top of carriages. At Canning Town in east London, one protestor was dragged off the roof of a carriage and set upon by commuters. This is a violation of the duty of non-interference. It might be that people were angered by having their day disrupted, but this doesn’t excuse their behaviour. It might be irritating but we have an obligation to do nothing.

Yet simply not interfering with individuals is not sufficient. Resistance to injustice is often organised. In addition to the obligation not to interfere with individuals, there must also be a duty of non-obstruction to organisations. In the age of Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook and TikTok, it is easy to inadvertently obstruct organisations fighting injustice. Posting a video or picture on social media could lead to a protestor being identified by the police or to escape routes being closed. We should avoid getting in the way of what those who are performing acts of resistance try to do. Living up to the duty of non-obstruction requires us to be more conscientious about the ways in which we communicate.

The final negative duty is that of non-collaboration with agencies that are suppressing resistance. If we shouldn’t inadvertently obstruct resistance, it follows that we shouldn’t actively help to suppress it. Agencies that are engaged in suppressing resistance often depend upon third-party assistance. As the academic Juan Espíndola found in his research on the German Democratic Republic of 1949-90, the wide network of ‘unofficial coworkers’ who informed on dissidents and provided logistical support to the Stasi were referred to as the state’s ‘respiratory organs’. Without collaboration, unjust regimes suffocate. We might think that we aren’t pressured to collaborate like this today, but one might look at Apple’s decision in 2019 to remove an app that sought to inform prodemocracy protestors in Hong Kong where the police were concentrating and using tear gas. It is possible that, as resistance to climate change grows, ‘liberal democratic’ states might employ similar pressures. The rule is simple: don’t snitch.

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:

From autumn 2018 for about a year, the group known as Extinction Rebellion (XR) staged a number of disruptive protests in the United Kingdom, on London’s bridges and across several city centres, bringing road traffic to a standstill. The protestors were drawing attention to the need for immediate action on the climate emergency. From their perspective, these were acts of resistance, drawing attention to injustice and inaction. What should someone who is sympathetic to this cause and to their action do? If possible, nothing. But there are different ways of doing nothing. It matters that you do nothing in the right way and for the right reasons.

There are at least three negative duties that are generated by the right of resistance: non-interference, non-obstruction and non-collaboration.

The simplest of these is the duty of non-interference. If a person has the right to do something, there is a fundamental duty not to prevent them from doing that thing. So, if a person is enacting their right to resistance, then bystanders have an obligation to forbear and not to interfere. This seems obvious, but there was a rather shocking instance during the London XR protests where this duty was not respected. In October 2019, protestors stopped London trains from working by climbing on top of carriages. At Canning Town in east London, one protestor was dragged off the roof of a carriage and set upon by commuters. This is a violation of the duty of non-interference. It might be that people were angered by having their day disrupted, but this doesn’t excuse their behaviour. It might be irritating but we have an obligation to do nothing.

Yet simply not interfering with individuals is not sufficient. Resistance to injustice is often organised. In addition to the obligation not to interfere with individuals, there must also be a duty of non-obstruction to organisations. In the age of Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook and TikTok, it is easy to inadvertently obstruct organisations fighting injustice. Posting a video or picture on social media could lead to a protestor being identified by the police or to escape routes being closed. We should avoid getting in the way of what those who are performing acts of resistance try to do. Living up to the duty of non-obstruction requires us to be more conscientious about the ways in which we communicate.

The final negative duty is that of non-collaboration with agencies that are suppressing resistance. If we shouldn’t inadvertently obstruct resistance, it follows that we shouldn’t actively help to suppress it. Agencies that are engaged in suppressing resistance often depend upon third-party assistance. As the academic Juan Espíndola found in his research on the German Democratic Republic of 1949-90, the wide network of ‘unofficial coworkers’ who informed on dissidents and provided logistical support to the Stasi were referred to as the state’s ‘respiratory organs’. Without collaboration, unjust regimes suffocate. We might think that we aren’t pressured to collaborate like this today, but one might look at Apple’s decision in 2019 to remove an app that sought to inform prodemocracy protestors in Hong Kong where the police were concentrating and using tear gas. It is possible that, as resistance to climate change grows, ‘liberal democratic’ states might employ similar pressures. The rule is simple: don’t snitch.

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:

From autumn 2018 for about a year, the group known as Extinction Rebellion (XR) staged a number of disruptive protests in the United Kingdom, on London’s bridges and across several city centres, bringing road traffic to a standstill. The protestors were drawing attention to the need for immediate action on the climate emergency. From their perspective, these were acts of resistance, drawing attention to injustice and inaction. What should someone who is sympathetic to this cause and to their action do? If possible, nothing. But there are different ways of doing nothing. It matters that you do nothing in the right way and for the right reasons.

There are at least three negative duties that are generated by the right of resistance: non-interference, non-obstruction and non-collaboration.

The simplest of these is the duty of non-interference. If a person has the right to do something, there is a fundamental duty not to prevent them from doing that thing. So, if a person is enacting their right to resistance, then bystanders have an obligation to forbear and not to interfere. This seems obvious, but there was a rather shocking instance during the London XR protests where this duty was not respected. In October 2019, protestors stopped London trains from working by climbing on top of carriages. At Canning Town in east London, one protestor was dragged off the roof of a carriage and set upon by commuters. This is a violation of the duty of non-interference. It might be that people were angered by having their day disrupted, but this doesn’t excuse their behaviour. It might be irritating but we have an obligation to do nothing.

Yet simply not interfering with individuals is not sufficient. Resistance to injustice is often organised. In addition to the obligation not to interfere with individuals, there must also be a duty of non-obstruction to organisations. In the age of Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook and TikTok, it is easy to inadvertently obstruct organisations fighting injustice. Posting a video or picture on social media could lead to a protestor being identified by the police or to escape routes being closed. We should avoid getting in the way of what those who are performing acts of resistance try to do. Living up to the duty of non-obstruction requires us to be more conscientious about the ways in which we communicate.

The final negative duty is that of non-collaboration with agencies that are suppressing resistance. If we shouldn’t inadvertently obstruct resistance, it follows that we shouldn’t actively help to suppress it. Agencies that are engaged in suppressing resistance often depend upon third-party assistance. As the academic Juan Espíndola found in his research on the German Democratic Republic of 1949-90, the wide network of ‘unofficial coworkers’ who informed on dissidents and provided logistical support to the Stasi were referred to as the state’s ‘respiratory organs’. Without collaboration, unjust regimes suffocate. We might think that we aren’t pressured to collaborate like this today, but one might look at Apple’s decision in 2019 to remove an app that sought to inform prodemocracy protestors in Hong Kong where the police were concentrating and using tear gas. It is possible that, as resistance to climate change grows, ‘liberal democratic’ states might employ similar pressures. The rule is simple: don’t snitch.

Read the passage and answer the following questions:

Ultra-fierce Tyrannosaurus rex is an icon. But the “tyrant lizard king,” which lived between 68 million and 66 million years ago, is just the youngest member of a family of dinosaurs that went back to about 167 million years ago. The earliest tyrannosaurs were quick and small. So how did T. rex become so big and bad? That’s one of the questions at the heart of “T. rex: The Ultimate Predator,” an exhibit now open at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. The exhibit takes a deep, multisensory dive into what we know about this most famous of dinosaurs. It is a fitting centrepiece for the museum’s 150th anniversary: The very first T. rex specimen was unearthed in Montana in 1905 by Barnum Brown, a palaeontologist at the museum.

For instance, cranial analyses suggest that T. rex had excellent vision and a very good sense of smell. The dinosaur also had a bone-crushing bite force. Perhaps reassuringly, the exhibit also notes that while a juvenile T. rex could run — defined as lifting one foot fully off the ground followed by the other — adult T. rexes were too heavy for a running gait. Their skeletons would have buckled under such a weighty load.

Life-size models of T. rex at various life stages help illustrate the animal’s astoundingly rapid rate of growth. Fluffy hatchlings were perhaps the size of chickens (and only about 40 per cent of them survived their first year). By age 4, the animals were already 4 meters tall, and by age 20, they had reached their full height, about 13 meters. A T. rex that lived to age 28 was essentially a senior citizen; no known T. rex specimens are thought to be older than that.

Most didn’t live past the age of 1, scientists estimate. There’s a lot we still don’t know about T. rex: what it sounded like, how to tell apart males from females and how the species got to be so giant. For clues to lingering puzzles, researchers have often turned to the other two dozen or so known members of the tyrannosaur family. As described in the exhibit, fossilized feathers found with several of T. rex ’s close relatives are the reason scientists suspect the king had feathers too. And tyrannosaurs with sensitive facial skin could mean that T. rex was similarly sensitive to touch and temperature.

Happily, the exhibit gives some of these other members of the tyrannosaur family tree a moment in the spotlight. These dinos include little-yet-fierce tyrannosaurs such as the wolf-sized Proceratosaurus-bradleyi, which lived about 167 million years ago, and hollow-boned, long-armed and feathered Dilong-paradoxus, which lived about 126 million years ago.

Although there’s a lot of information to take in, the exhibit also aims to be highly interactive. There are touchable fossils and fossil casts, a “roar mixer” that allows people to imagine the voice of a T. rex by blending other animals’ sounds, and a virtual reality station where visitors can piece together a skeleton. The pièce de résistance comes at the end of the exhibit: A life-size animated T. rex projected onto a screen that tracks passersby; stand in front of it long enough and it might take a snap at you.

Read the passage and answer the following questions:

Ultra-fierce Tyrannosaurus rex is an icon. But the “tyrant lizard king,” which lived between 68 million and 66 million years ago, is just the youngest member of a family of dinosaurs that went back to about 167 million years ago. The earliest tyrannosaurs were quick and small. So how did T. rex become so big and bad? That’s one of the questions at the heart of “T. rex: The Ultimate Predator,” an exhibit now open at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. The exhibit takes a deep, multisensory dive into what we know about this most famous of dinosaurs. It is a fitting centrepiece for the museum’s 150th anniversary: The very first T. rex specimen was unearthed in Montana in 1905 by Barnum Brown, a palaeontologist at the museum.

For instance, cranial analyses suggest that T. rex had excellent vision and a very good sense of smell. The dinosaur also had a bone-crushing bite force. Perhaps reassuringly, the exhibit also notes that while a juvenile T. rex could run — defined as lifting one foot fully off the ground followed by the other — adult T. rexes were too heavy for a running gait. Their skeletons would have buckled under such a weighty load.

Life-size models of T. rex at various life stages help illustrate the animal’s astoundingly rapid rate of growth. Fluffy hatchlings were perhaps the size of chickens (and only about 40 per cent of them survived their first year). By age 4, the animals were already 4 meters tall, and by age 20, they had reached their full height, about 13 meters. A T. rex that lived to age 28 was essentially a senior citizen; no known T. rex specimens are thought to be older than that.

Most didn’t live past the age of 1, scientists estimate. There’s a lot we still don’t know about T. rex: what it sounded like, how to tell apart males from females and how the species got to be so giant. For clues to lingering puzzles, researchers have often turned to the other two dozen or so known members of the tyrannosaur family. As described in the exhibit, fossilized feathers found with several of T. rex ’s close relatives are the reason scientists suspect the king had feathers too. And tyrannosaurs with sensitive facial skin could mean that T. rex was similarly sensitive to touch and temperature.

Happily, the exhibit gives some of these other members of the tyrannosaur family tree a moment in the spotlight. These dinos include little-yet-fierce tyrannosaurs such as the wolf-sized Proceratosaurus-bradleyi, which lived about 167 million years ago, and hollow-boned, long-armed and feathered Dilong-paradoxus, which lived about 126 million years ago.

Although there’s a lot of information to take in, the exhibit also aims to be highly interactive. There are touchable fossils and fossil casts, a “roar mixer” that allows people to imagine the voice of a T. rex by blending other animals’ sounds, and a virtual reality station where visitors can piece together a skeleton. The pièce de résistance comes at the end of the exhibit: A life-size animated T. rex projected onto a screen that tracks passersby; stand in front of it long enough and it might take a snap at you.

Read the passage and answer the following questions:

Ultra-fierce Tyrannosaurus rex is an icon. But the “tyrant lizard king,” which lived between 68 million and 66 million years ago, is just the youngest member of a family of dinosaurs that went back to about 167 million years ago. The earliest tyrannosaurs were quick and small. So how did T. rex become so big and bad? That’s one of the questions at the heart of “T. rex: The Ultimate Predator,” an exhibit now open at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. The exhibit takes a deep, multisensory dive into what we know about this most famous of dinosaurs. It is a fitting centrepiece for the museum’s 150th anniversary: The very first T. rex specimen was unearthed in Montana in 1905 by Barnum Brown, a palaeontologist at the museum.

For instance, cranial analyses suggest that T. rex had excellent vision and a very good sense of smell. The dinosaur also had a bone-crushing bite force. Perhaps reassuringly, the exhibit also notes that while a juvenile T. rex could run — defined as lifting one foot fully off the ground followed by the other — adult T. rexes were too heavy for a running gait. Their skeletons would have buckled under such a weighty load.

Life-size models of T. rex at various life stages help illustrate the animal’s astoundingly rapid rate of growth. Fluffy hatchlings were perhaps the size of chickens (and only about 40 per cent of them survived their first year). By age 4, the animals were already 4 meters tall, and by age 20, they had reached their full height, about 13 meters. A T. rex that lived to age 28 was essentially a senior citizen; no known T. rex specimens are thought to be older than that.

Most didn’t live past the age of 1, scientists estimate. There’s a lot we still don’t know about T. rex: what it sounded like, how to tell apart males from females and how the species got to be so giant. For clues to lingering puzzles, researchers have often turned to the other two dozen or so known members of the tyrannosaur family. As described in the exhibit, fossilized feathers found with several of T. rex ’s close relatives are the reason scientists suspect the king had feathers too. And tyrannosaurs with sensitive facial skin could mean that T. rex was similarly sensitive to touch and temperature.

Happily, the exhibit gives some of these other members of the tyrannosaur family tree a moment in the spotlight. These dinos include little-yet-fierce tyrannosaurs such as the wolf-sized Proceratosaurus-bradleyi, which lived about 167 million years ago, and hollow-boned, long-armed and feathered Dilong-paradoxus, which lived about 126 million years ago.

Although there’s a lot of information to take in, the exhibit also aims to be highly interactive. There are touchable fossils and fossil casts, a “roar mixer” that allows people to imagine the voice of a T. rex by blending other animals’ sounds, and a virtual reality station where visitors can piece together a skeleton. The pièce de résistance comes at the end of the exhibit: A life-size animated T. rex projected onto a screen that tracks passersby; stand in front of it long enough and it might take a snap at you.

Read the passage and answer the following questions:

Ultra-fierce Tyrannosaurus rex is an icon. But the “tyrant lizard king,” which lived between 68 million and 66 million years ago, is just the youngest member of a family of dinosaurs that went back to about 167 million years ago. The earliest tyrannosaurs were quick and small. So how did T. rex become so big and bad? That’s one of the questions at the heart of “T. rex: The Ultimate Predator,” an exhibit now open at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. The exhibit takes a deep, multisensory dive into what we know about this most famous of dinosaurs. It is a fitting centrepiece for the museum’s 150th anniversary: The very first T. rex specimen was unearthed in Montana in 1905 by Barnum Brown, a palaeontologist at the museum.

For instance, cranial analyses suggest that T. rex had excellent vision and a very good sense of smell. The dinosaur also had a bone-crushing bite force. Perhaps reassuringly, the exhibit also notes that while a juvenile T. rex could run — defined as lifting one foot fully off the ground followed by the other — adult T. rexes were too heavy for a running gait. Their skeletons would have buckled under such a weighty load.

Life-size models of T. rex at various life stages help illustrate the animal’s astoundingly rapid rate of growth. Fluffy hatchlings were perhaps the size of chickens (and only about 40 per cent of them survived their first year). By age 4, the animals were already 4 meters tall, and by age 20, they had reached their full height, about 13 meters. A T. rex that lived to age 28 was essentially a senior citizen; no known T. rex specimens are thought to be older than that.

Most didn’t live past the age of 1, scientists estimate. There’s a lot we still don’t know about T. rex: what it sounded like, how to tell apart males from females and how the species got to be so giant. For clues to lingering puzzles, researchers have often turned to the other two dozen or so known members of the tyrannosaur family. As described in the exhibit, fossilized feathers found with several of T. rex ’s close relatives are the reason scientists suspect the king had feathers too. And tyrannosaurs with sensitive facial skin could mean that T. rex was similarly sensitive to touch and temperature.

Happily, the exhibit gives some of these other members of the tyrannosaur family tree a moment in the spotlight. These dinos include little-yet-fierce tyrannosaurs such as the wolf-sized Proceratosaurus-bradleyi, which lived about 167 million years ago, and hollow-boned, long-armed and feathered Dilong-paradoxus, which lived about 126 million years ago.

Although there’s a lot of information to take in, the exhibit also aims to be highly interactive. There are touchable fossils and fossil casts, a “roar mixer” that allows people to imagine the voice of a T. rex by blending other animals’ sounds, and a virtual reality station where visitors can piece together a skeleton. The pièce de résistance comes at the end of the exhibit: A life-size animated T. rex projected onto a screen that tracks passersby; stand in front of it long enough and it might take a snap at you.