Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension (VARC) Test - 9

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

Even those brimming with personal resilience need outside help if they face challenges on multiple fronts. As executive director of IMPACCT Brooklyn, a community development corporation that serves the historically black neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Bernell K. Grier sees just how hard the pandemic has hit the African-American community. "Daily, I'm hearing of people who are either ­COVID-positive, recovering from it or have died from it," she says. Three of those deaths occurred in apartments that Grier manages and required her to organize deep-cleaning services. Still, she pressed on. "Seniors are fearful of going out, fearful of anyone coming to their front door," Grier says. "They also are not tech-savvy. A lot of things where they're being told to go on the computer, they need someone to hold their hand and help them through the process."

The pandemic, Fancourt says, "is going to exacerbate the social gradient that we're used to seeing across society. It's crucial that [people] have interventions at a national level that can support [them]." In the U.K., such interventions include the National Health Service and a furlough program that pays up to 80 percent of the salaries of millions of Britons who could not work because of the pandemic. In the U.S., paycheck-protection packages and unemployment exist but proved difficult to access quickly.

Grier is advocating for positive change for her community. In her talks with public health and elected officials, she points out disparities such as the fact that the first test centers were not located in poor neighborhoods. "This is a spotlight on what has existed for too long," she says. "When you're looking at [solutions], make sure that income equality and a racial-equity lens is a filter for everything that's put in place." As Brooklyn reemerges from social isolation, Grier knows the critical role groups like hers play. "We will continue to be here to be that liaison, that credit counselor, that navigator."

Cultivating resilience though community support appears to be more important than ever. As a school nurse in Brooklyn, Marilyn Howard, who immigrated from Guyana as a teenager, worked through the early weeks of March until the public schools closed. She got sick the day after she left work. It took 10 days to get the test results that confirmed she had ­COVID-19. By then Howard thought she was on the road to recovery. But on Saturday, April 4, she awoke with labored breathing that rapidly worsened. Her brother Nigel Howard, with whom she shared an apartment, called an ambulance. Less than a minute before they arrived, her heart stopped, and she could not be revived. She was 53.

Nigel has since tested positive for ­­COVID-19 and has been isolated at home. "My brothers and I are in the initial phases of trying to plan an organization that targets efforts to help the black and brown community, poor communities, address some of these [issues] on a local and tangible level," Howard says. It is something they can do in memory of their sister that would have made her proud. "That's one of the ways that we're coping," he adds. "How do we turn tragedy into triumph?"

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

Even those brimming with personal resilience need outside help if they face challenges on multiple fronts. As executive director of IMPACCT Brooklyn, a community development corporation that serves the historically black neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Bernell K. Grier sees just how hard the pandemic has hit the African-American community. "Daily, I'm hearing of people who are either ­COVID-positive, recovering from it or have died from it," she says. Three of those deaths occurred in apartments that Grier manages and required her to organize deep-cleaning services. Still, she pressed on. "Seniors are fearful of going out, fearful of anyone coming to their front door," Grier says. "They also are not tech-savvy. A lot of things where they're being told to go on the computer, they need someone to hold their hand and help them through the process."

The pandemic, Fancourt says, "is going to exacerbate the social gradient that we're used to seeing across society. It's crucial that [people] have interventions at a national level that can support [them]." In the U.K., such interventions include the National Health Service and a furlough program that pays up to 80 percent of the salaries of millions of Britons who could not work because of the pandemic. In the U.S., paycheck-protection packages and unemployment exist but proved difficult to access quickly.

Grier is advocating for positive change for her community. In her talks with public health and elected officials, she points out disparities such as the fact that the first test centers were not located in poor neighborhoods. "This is a spotlight on what has existed for too long," she says. "When you're looking at [solutions], make sure that income equality and a racial-equity lens is a filter for everything that's put in place." As Brooklyn reemerges from social isolation, Grier knows the critical role groups like hers play. "We will continue to be here to be that liaison, that credit counselor, that navigator."

Cultivating resilience though community support appears to be more important than ever. As a school nurse in Brooklyn, Marilyn Howard, who immigrated from Guyana as a teenager, worked through the early weeks of March until the public schools closed. She got sick the day after she left work. It took 10 days to get the test results that confirmed she had ­COVID-19. By then Howard thought she was on the road to recovery. But on Saturday, April 4, she awoke with labored breathing that rapidly worsened. Her brother Nigel Howard, with whom she shared an apartment, called an ambulance. Less than a minute before they arrived, her heart stopped, and she could not be revived. She was 53.

Nigel has since tested positive for ­­COVID-19 and has been isolated at home. "My brothers and I are in the initial phases of trying to plan an organization that targets efforts to help the black and brown community, poor communities, address some of these [issues] on a local and tangible level," Howard says. It is something they can do in memory of their sister that would have made her proud. "That's one of the ways that we're coping," he adds. "How do we turn tragedy into triumph?"

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

Even those brimming with personal resilience need outside help if they face challenges on multiple fronts. As executive director of IMPACCT Brooklyn, a community development corporation that serves the historically black neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Bernell K. Grier sees just how hard the pandemic has hit the African-American community. "Daily, I'm hearing of people who are either ­COVID-positive, recovering from it or have died from it," she says. Three of those deaths occurred in apartments that Grier manages and required her to organize deep-cleaning services. Still, she pressed on. "Seniors are fearful of going out, fearful of anyone coming to their front door," Grier says. "They also are not tech-savvy. A lot of things where they're being told to go on the computer, they need someone to hold their hand and help them through the process."

The pandemic, Fancourt says, "is going to exacerbate the social gradient that we're used to seeing across society. It's crucial that [people] have interventions at a national level that can support [them]." In the U.K., such interventions include the National Health Service and a furlough program that pays up to 80 percent of the salaries of millions of Britons who could not work because of the pandemic. In the U.S., paycheck-protection packages and unemployment exist but proved difficult to access quickly.

Grier is advocating for positive change for her community. In her talks with public health and elected officials, she points out disparities such as the fact that the first test centers were not located in poor neighborhoods. "This is a spotlight on what has existed for too long," she says. "When you're looking at [solutions], make sure that income equality and a racial-equity lens is a filter for everything that's put in place." As Brooklyn reemerges from social isolation, Grier knows the critical role groups like hers play. "We will continue to be here to be that liaison, that credit counselor, that navigator."

Cultivating resilience though community support appears to be more important than ever. As a school nurse in Brooklyn, Marilyn Howard, who immigrated from Guyana as a teenager, worked through the early weeks of March until the public schools closed. She got sick the day after she left work. It took 10 days to get the test results that confirmed she had ­COVID-19. By then Howard thought she was on the road to recovery. But on Saturday, April 4, she awoke with labored breathing that rapidly worsened. Her brother Nigel Howard, with whom she shared an apartment, called an ambulance. Less than a minute before they arrived, her heart stopped, and she could not be revived. She was 53.

Nigel has since tested positive for ­­COVID-19 and has been isolated at home. "My brothers and I are in the initial phases of trying to plan an organization that targets efforts to help the black and brown community, poor communities, address some of these [issues] on a local and tangible level," Howard says. It is something they can do in memory of their sister that would have made her proud. "That's one of the ways that we're coping," he adds. "How do we turn tragedy into triumph?"

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

Even those brimming with personal resilience need outside help if they face challenges on multiple fronts. As executive director of IMPACCT Brooklyn, a community development corporation that serves the historically black neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Bernell K. Grier sees just how hard the pandemic has hit the African-American community. "Daily, I'm hearing of people who are either ­COVID-positive, recovering from it or have died from it," she says. Three of those deaths occurred in apartments that Grier manages and required her to organize deep-cleaning services. Still, she pressed on. "Seniors are fearful of going out, fearful of anyone coming to their front door," Grier says. "They also are not tech-savvy. A lot of things where they're being told to go on the computer, they need someone to hold their hand and help them through the process."

The pandemic, Fancourt says, "is going to exacerbate the social gradient that we're used to seeing across society. It's crucial that [people] have interventions at a national level that can support [them]." In the U.K., such interventions include the National Health Service and a furlough program that pays up to 80 percent of the salaries of millions of Britons who could not work because of the pandemic. In the U.S., paycheck-protection packages and unemployment exist but proved difficult to access quickly.

Grier is advocating for positive change for her community. In her talks with public health and elected officials, she points out disparities such as the fact that the first test centers were not located in poor neighborhoods. "This is a spotlight on what has existed for too long," she says. "When you're looking at [solutions], make sure that income equality and a racial-equity lens is a filter for everything that's put in place." As Brooklyn reemerges from social isolation, Grier knows the critical role groups like hers play. "We will continue to be here to be that liaison, that credit counselor, that navigator."

Cultivating resilience though community support appears to be more important than ever. As a school nurse in Brooklyn, Marilyn Howard, who immigrated from Guyana as a teenager, worked through the early weeks of March until the public schools closed. She got sick the day after she left work. It took 10 days to get the test results that confirmed she had ­COVID-19. By then Howard thought she was on the road to recovery. But on Saturday, April 4, she awoke with labored breathing that rapidly worsened. Her brother Nigel Howard, with whom she shared an apartment, called an ambulance. Less than a minute before they arrived, her heart stopped, and she could not be revived. She was 53.

Nigel has since tested positive for ­­COVID-19 and has been isolated at home. "My brothers and I are in the initial phases of trying to plan an organization that targets efforts to help the black and brown community, poor communities, address some of these [issues] on a local and tangible level," Howard says. It is something they can do in memory of their sister that would have made her proud. "That's one of the ways that we're coping," he adds. "How do we turn tragedy into triumph?"

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:

Consumer giant Unilever says it will rename its bestselling skin lightening cream Fair and Lovely and drop the word "fair" from its name. While the news has been welcomed, campaigners say the move doesn't go far enough - and in India demand for such products shows no sign of waning. Unilever and its Indian subsidiary Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) have been criticised extensively for promoting colourism and making girls with darker shades feel insecure and inadequate.

Pressure had been mounting since last week when US multinational Johnson and Johnson announced it would no longer produce or sell two of its creams which are popular in Asia and the Middle East in response to the death of George Floyd and the worldwide debate about racism it sparked. "Conversations over the past few weeks highlighted that some product names or claims on our Neutrogena and Clean & Clear dark-spot reducer products represent fairness or white as better than your own unique skin tone," Johnson and Johnson said in a statement. "This was never our intention - healthy skin is beautiful skin."

Fair and Lovely is India's largest selling skin lightening cream, with 24bn rupees ($317m; £256m) in annual revenue. Ever since the 1970s when it first hit the market, millions of tubes are bought every year by teenagers and young women in a country where lighter skin is routinely equated with beauty. Top Bollywood actors and actresses have appeared in advertisements to endorse Fair and Lovely that promote fair skin as a means to finding love or a glamorous job. On Thursday morning, Fair & Lovely trended high on Twitter in India with hundreds demanding a ban on its advertising and sale. In the past two weeks, at least three change.org petitions have come up globally, asking Unilever to banish the cream from markets in Asia and Asian stores in the West.

One said this product "built upon, perpetuated and benefited from internalized racism and promotes anti-blackness sentiments amongst all its consumers". On Thursday afternoon, Unilever decided to act saying that "a new name has been chosen for the cream and is awaiting regulatory approvals". We recognise that the use of the words 'fair', 'white' and 'light' suggest a singular ideal of beauty that we don't think is right, and we want to address this," the company said in a statement. It added that they were working to make their skincare portfolio "more inclusive" and "want to lead the celebration of a more diverse portrayal of beauty".

In the past few years, they said they had already made some changes - such as removing a shade card from the packaging and no longer doing before and after comparisons of skin tones in their advertisements. They also promised to "feature women of different skin tones, representative of the variety of beauty across India and other countries" in their future campaigns.

While many rejoiced over the announcement, describing it as historic and a huge victory, others pointed out that it was old wine in a new bottle as the company was still going to sell the same cream with the same ingredients, but with a new name. Chandana Hiran, who authored one of the petitions, told the BBC the Unilever announcement was "a path-breaking decision" but was only "a first step towards inclusivity".

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:

Consumer giant Unilever says it will rename its bestselling skin lightening cream Fair and Lovely and drop the word "fair" from its name. While the news has been welcomed, campaigners say the move doesn't go far enough - and in India demand for such products shows no sign of waning. Unilever and its Indian subsidiary Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) have been criticised extensively for promoting colourism and making girls with darker shades feel insecure and inadequate.

Pressure had been mounting since last week when US multinational Johnson and Johnson announced it would no longer produce or sell two of its creams which are popular in Asia and the Middle East in response to the death of George Floyd and the worldwide debate about racism it sparked. "Conversations over the past few weeks highlighted that some product names or claims on our Neutrogena and Clean & Clear dark-spot reducer products represent fairness or white as better than your own unique skin tone," Johnson and Johnson said in a statement. "This was never our intention - healthy skin is beautiful skin."

Fair and Lovely is India's largest selling skin lightening cream, with 24bn rupees ($317m; £256m) in annual revenue. Ever since the 1970s when it first hit the market, millions of tubes are bought every year by teenagers and young women in a country where lighter skin is routinely equated with beauty. Top Bollywood actors and actresses have appeared in advertisements to endorse Fair and Lovely that promote fair skin as a means to finding love or a glamorous job. On Thursday morning, Fair & Lovely trended high on Twitter in India with hundreds demanding a ban on its advertising and sale. In the past two weeks, at least three change.org petitions have come up globally, asking Unilever to banish the cream from markets in Asia and Asian stores in the West.

One said this product "built upon, perpetuated and benefited from internalized racism and promotes anti-blackness sentiments amongst all its consumers". On Thursday afternoon, Unilever decided to act saying that "a new name has been chosen for the cream and is awaiting regulatory approvals". We recognise that the use of the words 'fair', 'white' and 'light' suggest a singular ideal of beauty that we don't think is right, and we want to address this," the company said in a statement. It added that they were working to make their skincare portfolio "more inclusive" and "want to lead the celebration of a more diverse portrayal of beauty".

In the past few years, they said they had already made some changes - such as removing a shade card from the packaging and no longer doing before and after comparisons of skin tones in their advertisements. They also promised to "feature women of different skin tones, representative of the variety of beauty across India and other countries" in their future campaigns.

While many rejoiced over the announcement, describing it as historic and a huge victory, others pointed out that it was old wine in a new bottle as the company was still going to sell the same cream with the same ingredients, but with a new name. Chandana Hiran, who authored one of the petitions, told the BBC the Unilever announcement was "a path-breaking decision" but was only "a first step towards inclusivity".

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:

Consumer giant Unilever says it will rename its bestselling skin lightening cream Fair and Lovely and drop the word "fair" from its name. While the news has been welcomed, campaigners say the move doesn't go far enough - and in India demand for such products shows no sign of waning. Unilever and its Indian subsidiary Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) have been criticised extensively for promoting colourism and making girls with darker shades feel insecure and inadequate.

Pressure had been mounting since last week when US multinational Johnson and Johnson announced it would no longer produce or sell two of its creams which are popular in Asia and the Middle East in response to the death of George Floyd and the worldwide debate about racism it sparked. "Conversations over the past few weeks highlighted that some product names or claims on our Neutrogena and Clean & Clear dark-spot reducer products represent fairness or white as better than your own unique skin tone," Johnson and Johnson said in a statement. "This was never our intention - healthy skin is beautiful skin."

Fair and Lovely is India's largest selling skin lightening cream, with 24bn rupees ($317m; £256m) in annual revenue. Ever since the 1970s when it first hit the market, millions of tubes are bought every year by teenagers and young women in a country where lighter skin is routinely equated with beauty. Top Bollywood actors and actresses have appeared in advertisements to endorse Fair and Lovely that promote fair skin as a means to finding love or a glamorous job. On Thursday morning, Fair & Lovely trended high on Twitter in India with hundreds demanding a ban on its advertising and sale. In the past two weeks, at least three change.org petitions have come up globally, asking Unilever to banish the cream from markets in Asia and Asian stores in the West.

One said this product "built upon, perpetuated and benefited from internalized racism and promotes anti-blackness sentiments amongst all its consumers". On Thursday afternoon, Unilever decided to act saying that "a new name has been chosen for the cream and is awaiting regulatory approvals". We recognise that the use of the words 'fair', 'white' and 'light' suggest a singular ideal of beauty that we don't think is right, and we want to address this," the company said in a statement. It added that they were working to make their skincare portfolio "more inclusive" and "want to lead the celebration of a more diverse portrayal of beauty".

In the past few years, they said they had already made some changes - such as removing a shade card from the packaging and no longer doing before and after comparisons of skin tones in their advertisements. They also promised to "feature women of different skin tones, representative of the variety of beauty across India and other countries" in their future campaigns.

While many rejoiced over the announcement, describing it as historic and a huge victory, others pointed out that it was old wine in a new bottle as the company was still going to sell the same cream with the same ingredients, but with a new name. Chandana Hiran, who authored one of the petitions, told the BBC the Unilever announcement was "a path-breaking decision" but was only "a first step towards inclusivity".

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:

Consumer giant Unilever says it will rename its bestselling skin lightening cream Fair and Lovely and drop the word "fair" from its name. While the news has been welcomed, campaigners say the move doesn't go far enough - and in India demand for such products shows no sign of waning. Unilever and its Indian subsidiary Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) have been criticised extensively for promoting colourism and making girls with darker shades feel insecure and inadequate.

Pressure had been mounting since last week when US multinational Johnson and Johnson announced it would no longer produce or sell two of its creams which are popular in Asia and the Middle East in response to the death of George Floyd and the worldwide debate about racism it sparked. "Conversations over the past few weeks highlighted that some product names or claims on our Neutrogena and Clean & Clear dark-spot reducer products represent fairness or white as better than your own unique skin tone," Johnson and Johnson said in a statement. "This was never our intention - healthy skin is beautiful skin."

Fair and Lovely is India's largest selling skin lightening cream, with 24bn rupees ($317m; £256m) in annual revenue. Ever since the 1970s when it first hit the market, millions of tubes are bought every year by teenagers and young women in a country where lighter skin is routinely equated with beauty. Top Bollywood actors and actresses have appeared in advertisements to endorse Fair and Lovely that promote fair skin as a means to finding love or a glamorous job. On Thursday morning, Fair & Lovely trended high on Twitter in India with hundreds demanding a ban on its advertising and sale. In the past two weeks, at least three change.org petitions have come up globally, asking Unilever to banish the cream from markets in Asia and Asian stores in the West.

One said this product "built upon, perpetuated and benefited from internalized racism and promotes anti-blackness sentiments amongst all its consumers". On Thursday afternoon, Unilever decided to act saying that "a new name has been chosen for the cream and is awaiting regulatory approvals". We recognise that the use of the words 'fair', 'white' and 'light' suggest a singular ideal of beauty that we don't think is right, and we want to address this," the company said in a statement. It added that they were working to make their skincare portfolio "more inclusive" and "want to lead the celebration of a more diverse portrayal of beauty".

In the past few years, they said they had already made some changes - such as removing a shade card from the packaging and no longer doing before and after comparisons of skin tones in their advertisements. They also promised to "feature women of different skin tones, representative of the variety of beauty across India and other countries" in their future campaigns.

While many rejoiced over the announcement, describing it as historic and a huge victory, others pointed out that it was old wine in a new bottle as the company was still going to sell the same cream with the same ingredients, but with a new name. Chandana Hiran, who authored one of the petitions, told the BBC the Unilever announcement was "a path-breaking decision" but was only "a first step towards inclusivity".

Read the following passage carefully and answer the following questions

In May 1830, the United States Congress passed ‘an Act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians’, authorising the US federal government to uproot and transport 80,000 people from their homes east of the Mississippi. The 80,000 victims of this state-sponsored forced relocation make up only a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of Indigenous Americans dispossessed since Europeans arrived in the Americas. But they represent nearly the entire native population then remaining in the US, excluding the nation’s unorganised western territories The secretary of war Lewis Cass celebrated that it was now possible to draw a line down the continent. ‘Indians’ lived on one side, he said, ‘our citizens’ on the other.

The Nazi deportation of Jews in the 1940s and the US deportation of Native Americans in the 1830s cannot be equated. Nonetheless, though the Nazi death camps appear to be unfathomable and incomparable, state-sponsored forced migrations share a genealogy. The Final Solution ultimately took on a horrific and gory form all of its own, yet the steps leading up to it covered familiar ground. State administrators widely believed that it was good policy to move problem peoples, whom they deemed backward or incapable of modernising, to remote colonies. That is why Franklin Roosevelt’s advisor on refugee policy, Isaiah Bowman, declared that the resettlement of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany ought to be understood as ‘a broad scientific undertaking, humanitarian in purpose’. Pioneering, as Bowman called it, would resolve territorial conflict to everyone’s benefit. It is also why Wilson Lumpkin, one of the lead architects of the US plan to deport native peoples in the 1830s, asserted that the ‘Indians can never be happy and prosperous’ in their homelands. Only if they were moved elsewhere would ‘a happy destiny’ await them.

Though these deportations occurred far from the US population centre along the East Coast, the nation’s major cities were nonetheless deeply connected to them. The opportunities for profit attracted capital from New York, Boston and even overseas from London, creating a financial network linking dispossessed Indigenous Americans with middle-class investors on both sides of the Atlantic. They underwrote state bonds to capitalise banks and finance the razing of indigenous farms. ‘Indian titles to extensive tracts of land’, boasted one bond prospectus, had recently been extinguished in Alabama; the potential profits were enormous.

From the cheery perspective of secretary of war James Barbour and many other Americans, the US undertaking to eliminate native peoples east of the Mississippi River was truly ‘modern’. In his view, it was founded in ‘justice and moderation’. ‘To spare the weak,’ he boasted, ‘is its brightest ornament.’ From the outset, the policy appealed to a small group of naive philanthropists, self-described realists who accepted as fact the oppressive conditions in which native peoples lived, and they therefore promoted deportation as a humanitarian solution. However, when native peoples didn’t agree to disappear, altruism gave way to a twisted logic. Deportation, explained Lumpkin, the governor of Georgia, was the only way to rescue native peoples from ‘speedy extermination’. If they resisted, armed troops might have to expel them at gunpoint. If military action led to bloodshed, it would be the fault of those who chose not to move in the first place.

Read the following passage carefully and answer the following questions

In May 1830, the United States Congress passed ‘an Act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians’, authorising the US federal government to uproot and transport 80,000 people from their homes east of the Mississippi. The 80,000 victims of this state-sponsored forced relocation make up only a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of Indigenous Americans dispossessed since Europeans arrived in the Americas. But they represent nearly the entire native population then remaining in the US, excluding the nation’s unorganised western territories The secretary of war Lewis Cass celebrated that it was now possible to draw a line down the continent. ‘Indians’ lived on one side, he said, ‘our citizens’ on the other.

The Nazi deportation of Jews in the 1940s and the US deportation of Native Americans in the 1830s cannot be equated. Nonetheless, though the Nazi death camps appear to be unfathomable and incomparable, state-sponsored forced migrations share a genealogy. The Final Solution ultimately took on a horrific and gory form all of its own, yet the steps leading up to it covered familiar ground. State administrators widely believed that it was good policy to move problem peoples, whom they deemed backward or incapable of modernising, to remote colonies. That is why Franklin Roosevelt’s advisor on refugee policy, Isaiah Bowman, declared that the resettlement of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany ought to be understood as ‘a broad scientific undertaking, humanitarian in purpose’. Pioneering, as Bowman called it, would resolve territorial conflict to everyone’s benefit. It is also why Wilson Lumpkin, one of the lead architects of the US plan to deport native peoples in the 1830s, asserted that the ‘Indians can never be happy and prosperous’ in their homelands. Only if they were moved elsewhere would ‘a happy destiny’ await them.

Though these deportations occurred far from the US population centre along the East Coast, the nation’s major cities were nonetheless deeply connected to them. The opportunities for profit attracted capital from New York, Boston and even overseas from London, creating a financial network linking dispossessed Indigenous Americans with middle-class investors on both sides of the Atlantic. They underwrote state bonds to capitalise banks and finance the razing of indigenous farms. ‘Indian titles to extensive tracts of land’, boasted one bond prospectus, had recently been extinguished in Alabama; the potential profits were enormous.

From the cheery perspective of secretary of war James Barbour and many other Americans, the US undertaking to eliminate native peoples east of the Mississippi River was truly ‘modern’. In his view, it was founded in ‘justice and moderation’. ‘To spare the weak,’ he boasted, ‘is its brightest ornament.’ From the outset, the policy appealed to a small group of naive philanthropists, self-described realists who accepted as fact the oppressive conditions in which native peoples lived, and they therefore promoted deportation as a humanitarian solution. However, when native peoples didn’t agree to disappear, altruism gave way to a twisted logic. Deportation, explained Lumpkin, the governor of Georgia, was the only way to rescue native peoples from ‘speedy extermination’. If they resisted, armed troops might have to expel them at gunpoint. If military action led to bloodshed, it would be the fault of those who chose not to move in the first place.

Read the following passage carefully and answer the following questions

In May 1830, the United States Congress passed ‘an Act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians’, authorising the US federal government to uproot and transport 80,000 people from their homes east of the Mississippi. The 80,000 victims of this state-sponsored forced relocation make up only a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of Indigenous Americans dispossessed since Europeans arrived in the Americas. But they represent nearly the entire native population then remaining in the US, excluding the nation’s unorganised western territories The secretary of war Lewis Cass celebrated that it was now possible to draw a line down the continent. ‘Indians’ lived on one side, he said, ‘our citizens’ on the other.

The Nazi deportation of Jews in the 1940s and the US deportation of Native Americans in the 1830s cannot be equated. Nonetheless, though the Nazi death camps appear to be unfathomable and incomparable, state-sponsored forced migrations share a genealogy. The Final Solution ultimately took on a horrific and gory form all of its own, yet the steps leading up to it covered familiar ground. State administrators widely believed that it was good policy to move problem peoples, whom they deemed backward or incapable of modernising, to remote colonies. That is why Franklin Roosevelt’s advisor on refugee policy, Isaiah Bowman, declared that the resettlement of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany ought to be understood as ‘a broad scientific undertaking, humanitarian in purpose’. Pioneering, as Bowman called it, would resolve territorial conflict to everyone’s benefit. It is also why Wilson Lumpkin, one of the lead architects of the US plan to deport native peoples in the 1830s, asserted that the ‘Indians can never be happy and prosperous’ in their homelands. Only if they were moved elsewhere would ‘a happy destiny’ await them.

Though these deportations occurred far from the US population centre along the East Coast, the nation’s major cities were nonetheless deeply connected to them. The opportunities for profit attracted capital from New York, Boston and even overseas from London, creating a financial network linking dispossessed Indigenous Americans with middle-class investors on both sides of the Atlantic. They underwrote state bonds to capitalise banks and finance the razing of indigenous farms. ‘Indian titles to extensive tracts of land’, boasted one bond prospectus, had recently been extinguished in Alabama; the potential profits were enormous.

From the cheery perspective of secretary of war James Barbour and many other Americans, the US undertaking to eliminate native peoples east of the Mississippi River was truly ‘modern’. In his view, it was founded in ‘justice and moderation’. ‘To spare the weak,’ he boasted, ‘is its brightest ornament.’ From the outset, the policy appealed to a small group of naive philanthropists, self-described realists who accepted as fact the oppressive conditions in which native peoples lived, and they therefore promoted deportation as a humanitarian solution. However, when native peoples didn’t agree to disappear, altruism gave way to a twisted logic. Deportation, explained Lumpkin, the governor of Georgia, was the only way to rescue native peoples from ‘speedy extermination’. If they resisted, armed troops might have to expel them at gunpoint. If military action led to bloodshed, it would be the fault of those who chose not to move in the first place.

Read the following passage carefully and answer the following questions

In May 1830, the United States Congress passed ‘an Act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians’, authorising the US federal government to uproot and transport 80,000 people from their homes east of the Mississippi. The 80,000 victims of this state-sponsored forced relocation make up only a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of Indigenous Americans dispossessed since Europeans arrived in the Americas. But they represent nearly the entire native population then remaining in the US, excluding the nation’s unorganised western territories The secretary of war Lewis Cass celebrated that it was now possible to draw a line down the continent. ‘Indians’ lived on one side, he said, ‘our citizens’ on the other.

The Nazi deportation of Jews in the 1940s and the US deportation of Native Americans in the 1830s cannot be equated. Nonetheless, though the Nazi death camps appear to be unfathomable and incomparable, state-sponsored forced migrations share a genealogy. The Final Solution ultimately took on a horrific and gory form all of its own, yet the steps leading up to it covered familiar ground. State administrators widely believed that it was good policy to move problem peoples, whom they deemed backward or incapable of modernising, to remote colonies. That is why Franklin Roosevelt’s advisor on refugee policy, Isaiah Bowman, declared that the resettlement of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany ought to be understood as ‘a broad scientific undertaking, humanitarian in purpose’. Pioneering, as Bowman called it, would resolve territorial conflict to everyone’s benefit. It is also why Wilson Lumpkin, one of the lead architects of the US plan to deport native peoples in the 1830s, asserted that the ‘Indians can never be happy and prosperous’ in their homelands. Only if they were moved elsewhere would ‘a happy destiny’ await them.

Though these deportations occurred far from the US population centre along the East Coast, the nation’s major cities were nonetheless deeply connected to them. The opportunities for profit attracted capital from New York, Boston and even overseas from London, creating a financial network linking dispossessed Indigenous Americans with middle-class investors on both sides of the Atlantic. They underwrote state bonds to capitalise banks and finance the razing of indigenous farms. ‘Indian titles to extensive tracts of land’, boasted one bond prospectus, had recently been extinguished in Alabama; the potential profits were enormous.

From the cheery perspective of secretary of war James Barbour and many other Americans, the US undertaking to eliminate native peoples east of the Mississippi River was truly ‘modern’. In his view, it was founded in ‘justice and moderation’. ‘To spare the weak,’ he boasted, ‘is its brightest ornament.’ From the outset, the policy appealed to a small group of naive philanthropists, self-described realists who accepted as fact the oppressive conditions in which native peoples lived, and they therefore promoted deportation as a humanitarian solution. However, when native peoples didn’t agree to disappear, altruism gave way to a twisted logic. Deportation, explained Lumpkin, the governor of Georgia, was the only way to rescue native peoples from ‘speedy extermination’. If they resisted, armed troops might have to expel them at gunpoint. If military action led to bloodshed, it would be the fault of those who chose not to move in the first place.

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

Embodied enactivism pushes us to think about the brain, body and environment all acting together as a complex system. This broad perspective aligns with clear evidence that, when it comes to mental disorder, everything from genes to culture seems to play an important role. More and more, it seems that mental disorder might not be defined by a single biological deviation or essence (such as an imbalance of chemicals in the brain); rather, mental disorders seem to be composed of networks of mechanisms, spanning the brain-body-environment system, that together maintain engagement with maladaptive behaviour.

Alongside this encompassing perspective, embodied enactivism has a particular understanding of values and normativity, seeing them as real things in the world that exist for organisms via their needful relationship with the environment. This has the potential to address a divide that currently exists between those who view mental disorders as defined by norms and values (referred to as ‘evaluativists’) and those who see mental disorders as naturally defined phenomena (known as ‘objectivists’). From the view of an embodied enactivist, mental disorders are both natural and normative: they’re patterns of behaviour, thought and emotion that are in conflict with a person’s mode of functioning in the world.

One quandary, in particular, highlights the usefulness of seeing mental disorder through the lens of embodied enactivism, a view for which there is growing support. Mental disorders might be best thought of as networks of mechanisms, rather than as diseases with clearly defined essences. Yet despite being affected by factors spanning the brain, body and environment, we still see apparently recognisable patterns of distress and dysfunction - such as depression and anxiety - rather than a melange of idiosyncratic problems in living. Why is this? Embodied enactivism suggests the possibility that these patterns of thoughts, behaviours and emotions represent ‘sticky tendencies’ in the human brain-body-environment system.

To understand this concept a little more, imagine holding a kitty-litter sized container with both hands. The floor of this container is shaped like a little landscape with hills and valleys. Now imagine placing a marble in the container and moving your hands so that the marble rolls over the landscape. In this analogy, the marble being in different places in the container represents different states that a person can be in, and the shape of the landscape represents the combined influences - ranging from chemicals to culture - that affect a person’s behaviour. In the top-left corner there is a particularly deep valley that represents depression or some other mental disorder. If the marble gets stuck in this valley, you really have to tilt and shake the container to get the marble to move out of there. While the marble is stuck in the valley, it can move only back and forward, stuck in the same pattern of behaviour; hence, depression is ‘sticky’.

In this view, if we’re going to explain, what we need to understand is the network of factors that shaped and maintain this valley. We need to understand how this network is constituted in such a way that it maintains this pattern of behaviours, thoughts and emotions, despite being maladaptive for the person affected.

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

Embodied enactivism pushes us to think about the brain, body and environment all acting together as a complex system. This broad perspective aligns with clear evidence that, when it comes to mental disorder, everything from genes to culture seems to play an important role. More and more, it seems that mental disorder might not be defined by a single biological deviation or essence (such as an imbalance of chemicals in the brain); rather, mental disorders seem to be composed of networks of mechanisms, spanning the brain-body-environment system, that together maintain engagement with maladaptive behaviour.

Alongside this encompassing perspective, embodied enactivism has a particular understanding of values and normativity, seeing them as real things in the world that exist for organisms via their needful relationship with the environment. This has the potential to address a divide that currently exists between those who view mental disorders as defined by norms and values (referred to as ‘evaluativists’) and those who see mental disorders as naturally defined phenomena (known as ‘objectivists’). From the view of an embodied enactivist, mental disorders are both natural and normative: they’re patterns of behaviour, thought and emotion that are in conflict with a person’s mode of functioning in the world.

One quandary, in particular, highlights the usefulness of seeing mental disorder through the lens of embodied enactivism, a view for which there is growing support. Mental disorders might be best thought of as networks of mechanisms, rather than as diseases with clearly defined essences. Yet despite being affected by factors spanning the brain, body and environment, we still see apparently recognisable patterns of distress and dysfunction - such as depression and anxiety - rather than a melange of idiosyncratic problems in living. Why is this? Embodied enactivism suggests the possibility that these patterns of thoughts, behaviours and emotions represent ‘sticky tendencies’ in the human brain-body-environment system.

To understand this concept a little more, imagine holding a kitty-litter sized container with both hands. The floor of this container is shaped like a little landscape with hills and valleys. Now imagine placing a marble in the container and moving your hands so that the marble rolls over the landscape. In this analogy, the marble being in different places in the container represents different states that a person can be in, and the shape of the landscape represents the combined influences - ranging from chemicals to culture - that affect a person’s behaviour. In the top-left corner there is a particularly deep valley that represents depression or some other mental disorder. If the marble gets stuck in this valley, you really have to tilt and shake the container to get the marble to move out of there. While the marble is stuck in the valley, it can move only back and forward, stuck in the same pattern of behaviour; hence, depression is ‘sticky’.

In this view, if we’re going to explain, what we need to understand is the network of factors that shaped and maintain this valley. We need to understand how this network is constituted in such a way that it maintains this pattern of behaviours, thoughts and emotions, despite being maladaptive for the person affected.

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

Embodied enactivism pushes us to think about the brain, body and environment all acting together as a complex system. This broad perspective aligns with clear evidence that, when it comes to mental disorder, everything from genes to culture seems to play an important role. More and more, it seems that mental disorder might not be defined by a single biological deviation or essence (such as an imbalance of chemicals in the brain); rather, mental disorders seem to be composed of networks of mechanisms, spanning the brain-body-environment system, that together maintain engagement with maladaptive behaviour.

Alongside this encompassing perspective, embodied enactivism has a particular understanding of values and normativity, seeing them as real things in the world that exist for organisms via their needful relationship with the environment. This has the potential to address a divide that currently exists between those who view mental disorders as defined by norms and values (referred to as ‘evaluativists’) and those who see mental disorders as naturally defined phenomena (known as ‘objectivists’). From the view of an embodied enactivist, mental disorders are both natural and normative: they’re patterns of behaviour, thought and emotion that are in conflict with a person’s mode of functioning in the world.

One quandary, in particular, highlights the usefulness of seeing mental disorder through the lens of embodied enactivism, a view for which there is growing support. Mental disorders might be best thought of as networks of mechanisms, rather than as diseases with clearly defined essences. Yet despite being affected by factors spanning the brain, body and environment, we still see apparently recognisable patterns of distress and dysfunction - such as depression and anxiety - rather than a melange of idiosyncratic problems in living. Why is this? Embodied enactivism suggests the possibility that these patterns of thoughts, behaviours and emotions represent ‘sticky tendencies’ in the human brain-body-environment system.

To understand this concept a little more, imagine holding a kitty-litter sized container with both hands. The floor of this container is shaped like a little landscape with hills and valleys. Now imagine placing a marble in the container and moving your hands so that the marble rolls over the landscape. In this analogy, the marble being in different places in the container represents different states that a person can be in, and the shape of the landscape represents the combined influences - ranging from chemicals to culture - that affect a person’s behaviour. In the top-left corner there is a particularly deep valley that represents depression or some other mental disorder. If the marble gets stuck in this valley, you really have to tilt and shake the container to get the marble to move out of there. While the marble is stuck in the valley, it can move only back and forward, stuck in the same pattern of behaviour; hence, depression is ‘sticky’.

In this view, if we’re going to explain, what we need to understand is the network of factors that shaped and maintain this valley. We need to understand how this network is constituted in such a way that it maintains this pattern of behaviours, thoughts and emotions, despite being maladaptive for the person affected.

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

Embodied enactivism pushes us to think about the brain, body and environment all acting together as a complex system. This broad perspective aligns with clear evidence that, when it comes to mental disorder, everything from genes to culture seems to play an important role. More and more, it seems that mental disorder might not be defined by a single biological deviation or essence (such as an imbalance of chemicals in the brain); rather, mental disorders seem to be composed of networks of mechanisms, spanning the brain-body-environment system, that together maintain engagement with maladaptive behaviour.

Alongside this encompassing perspective, embodied enactivism has a particular understanding of values and normativity, seeing them as real things in the world that exist for organisms via their needful relationship with the environment. This has the potential to address a divide that currently exists between those who view mental disorders as defined by norms and values (referred to as ‘evaluativists’) and those who see mental disorders as naturally defined phenomena (known as ‘objectivists’). From the view of an embodied enactivist, mental disorders are both natural and normative: they’re patterns of behaviour, thought and emotion that are in conflict with a person’s mode of functioning in the world.

One quandary, in particular, highlights the usefulness of seeing mental disorder through the lens of embodied enactivism, a view for which there is growing support. Mental disorders might be best thought of as networks of mechanisms, rather than as diseases with clearly defined essences. Yet despite being affected by factors spanning the brain, body and environment, we still see apparently recognisable patterns of distress and dysfunction - such as depression and anxiety - rather than a melange of idiosyncratic problems in living. Why is this? Embodied enactivism suggests the possibility that these patterns of thoughts, behaviours and emotions represent ‘sticky tendencies’ in the human brain-body-environment system.

To understand this concept a little more, imagine holding a kitty-litter sized container with both hands. The floor of this container is shaped like a little landscape with hills and valleys. Now imagine placing a marble in the container and moving your hands so that the marble rolls over the landscape. In this analogy, the marble being in different places in the container represents different states that a person can be in, and the shape of the landscape represents the combined influences - ranging from chemicals to culture - that affect a person’s behaviour. In the top-left corner there is a particularly deep valley that represents depression or some other mental disorder. If the marble gets stuck in this valley, you really have to tilt and shake the container to get the marble to move out of there. While the marble is stuck in the valley, it can move only back and forward, stuck in the same pattern of behaviour; hence, depression is ‘sticky’.

In this view, if we’re going to explain, what we need to understand is the network of factors that shaped and maintain this valley. We need to understand how this network is constituted in such a way that it maintains this pattern of behaviours, thoughts and emotions, despite being maladaptive for the person affected.