Self Studies
Selfstudy
Selfstudy

Reading Comprehension Test 62

Result Self Studies

Reading Comprehension Test 62
  • Score

    -

    out of -
  • Rank

    -

    out of -
TIME Taken - -
Self Studies

SHARING IS CARING

If our Website helped you a little, then kindly spread our voice using Social Networks. Spread our word to your readers, friends, teachers, students & all those close ones who deserve to know what you know now.

Self Studies Self Studies
Weekly Quiz Competition
  • Question 1
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:
    Etiquette is the unwritten code that governs social behaviour. Etiquette reflects formulas of conduct in which society or tradition have invested. Western etiquette tells people to greet friends and acquaintances with warmth and respect, refrain from insults and curiosity, offer hospitality equally to guests, wear clothing suited to the occasion, talk properly, eat neatly and quietly, avoid disturbing others, follow the rules of an organization, arrive promptly when expected, comfort the bereaved, and respond to invitations promptly.
    Violations of etiquette can cause public disgrace, and in private hurt individual feelings, create misunderstandings or real grief and pain.
    Some people feel etiquette to be an unnecessary restriction of freedom of personal expression. However, wearing pyjamas to a wedding in a cathedral may be an expression of the guest's freedom, but may also cause the bride and groom to suspect that the guest is expressing amusement or disparagement towards them and their wedding.
    Etiquette is dependent on culture; what is excellent etiquette in one society may shock in another. Etiquette can vary widely between different cultures and nations. In China, a person who takes the last item of food from a common plate without offering it to others at the table is seen as a glutton whilst in most European cultures he is expected to eat all the food given to them, as a compliment to the cooking. In some societies, it is considered disgusting to eat with the left hand, and left-handed individuals are sometimes forced to use their right hand. Recently, the internet has created Netiquette, which governs the drafting of e-mail, rules for participating in online forums, and so on.  
    [passage-footer]- Bhuvan's Journal March 31, 2007[/passage-footer]

    ...view full instructions

    Fill in the blank with the most appropriate word:
    Social behaviour ______ by the unwritten code, Etiquette.
    Solution
    The given sentence "Social behaviour ___ by..." is the passive voice form of the sentence in the passage: "Etiquette is... that governs social behaviour".
    Option B: The most suitable option is "is governed", as mentioned in the quoted line:
    "Etiquette is the unwritten code that governs social behaviour." Hence B is the correct option.
    Options A and C: The given sentence is in passive voice, hence the verb must also be in passive form. 'Decides' and 'shows' are active verbs. Moreover, they do not provide the same meaning as 'govern'. Hence A and C are incorrect.
    Option D: 'Is shown' does not mean the same as "governs" from the passage. The latter word means 'to control' whereas the former (show) means 'to make visible'. Hence D is also incorrect.
  • Question 2
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    Read the following passage and answer the following question. Choice can be of more than one option, however choose the accurate option(s) that answers the question.  

        One of the most prolific authors of all time, Isaac Asimov was influential both in science fiction and in the popularization of science during the twentieth century, but he is also justly famous for the scope of his interest. Although the common claim that Asimov is the only author to have written a book in every category of the Dewey decimal system is untrue, its spirit provides an accurate picture of the man: a dedicated humanist who lauded the  far-reaching power of reason. His most famous work, the Foundation trilogy, can be read as an illustration of Asimov's belief in reason and science, but even while he expressed that belief, science itself was calling it into question.

        Foundation describes a time which a vast Empire spanning the galaxy is on the verge of collapse. Its inevitable doom is a consequence not if its size, but of the shortsightedness of its leaders. In this environment, a scientist named Hari Seldon devises an all encompassing plan to help human civilization recover from the trauma of the Empire's coming collapse. Using mathematics, Seldon is able to predict the future course of history of thousands of years, and he takes steps that are geared toward guiding that future in a beneficial direction. The trope of the benevolent and paternalistic scientist shaping existence from behind the scenes, present in much of Asimov's fiction, is never more explicit than in the Foundation series, which describes with an epic sweep the course and progress of the Seldon Plan.

        As naive and, perhaps, self-serving as the conceit of Foundation may seem to contemporary readers, it retains to some degree its ability of comfort by offering and antidote to the complex and unpredictable nature of experience. Science in Asimov's time was, in popular conceptions, engaged in just this pursuit: discerning immutable laws that operate beneath a surface appearance of contingency, inexplicability, and change. But even while Asimov wrote, science itself was changing. In Physics, the study of matter at the subatomic level showed that indeterminacy was not a transitory difficulty to be overcome, but an essential physical principle. In Biology, the sense of evolution as a steady progress toward better adapted forms was being disturbed by proof of a past large-scale evolution taking place in brief explosions, of frantic change. At the time of Asimov's death, even Mathematics was gaining popular notice for its interest in chaos and inexplicability.

    Usually summarized in terms of the so-called 'butterfly effect', chaos theory showed that perfect prediction could take place only on the basis of perfect information, which was by nature impossible to obtain. Science had dispensed with very assumptions that motivated Asimov's idealization of it in the Seldon Plan. Indeed, it was possible to see chaos at work in Foundation itself: as sequels multiplied and began to be tied into narrative threads from Asimov's other novels, the urge to weave one grand narrative spawned myriad internal inconsistencies that were never resolved.

    ...view full instructions

    With respect of the Seldon Plan, the author's attitude can most properly be described as
    Solution
    The last paragraph it is mentioned that, 'Science had dispensed with the very assumption that motivated Asimov's idealization of it in the Seldon Plan'. According to this statement we can gather that option (d) is the correct pick.
  • Question 3
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    [passage-header]Read the given passage carefully and attempt the question that follows:[/passage-header]MY LOVE FOR NATURE, goes right back to my childhood, to the times when I stayed on my grandparents' firm in Suffolk. My father was in the armed forces, so we were always moving and didn't have a home base for any length of time, but I loved going there. I think it was my grandmother who encouraged me more than anyone: she taught me the names of wildflowers and got me interested in looking at the countryside, so it seemed obvious to go on to do Zoology at University.

    I didn't get my first camera until after I'd graduated when I was due to go diving in Norway and needed a method of recording the sea creatures I would find there. My father didn't know anything about photography, but he bought me an Exacta, which was really quite a good camera for the time, and I went off to take my first pictures of sea anemones and starfish. I became keen very quickly, and learned how to develop and print; obviously I didn't have much money in those days, so I did more black and white photography than color, but it was all still using the camera very much as a tool to record what I found both by diving and on the shore. I had no ambition at all to be a photographer then, or even for some years afterward.

    Unlike many of the wildlife photographers of the time, I trained as a scientist and therefore my way of expressing myself is very different. I've tried from the beginning to produce pictures which are always biologically correct. There are people who will alter things deliberately: you don't pick up sea creatures from the middle of the shore and take them down to attractive pools at the bottom of the shore without knowing you're doing it. In so doing you're actually falsifying the sort of seaweeds they live on and so on, which may seem unimportant, but it is actually changing the natural surroundings, to make them prettier. Unfortunately, many of the people who select are looking for attractive images and, at the end of the day, whether it's truthful or not doesn't really matter to them.

    It's important to think about the animal first, and there are many occasions when I've not taken a picture because it would have been too disturbing. Nothing is so important that you have to get that shot; of course, there are cases when it would be very sad if you didn't, but it's not the end of the world. There can be a lot of ignorance in people's behavior towards wild animals and it's a problem that more and more people are going to wild places: while some animals may get used to cars, they won't get used to people suddenly rushing up to them. The sheer pressure of people,  coupled with the fact that there are increasingly fewer places where no-one else has photographed, means that over the years, life has become much more difficult for the professional wildlife photographer.

    Nevertheless, wildlife photography plays a very important part in educating people about what is out there and what needs conserving. Although photography can be an enjoyable pastime, as it is to many people, it is also something that plays a very important part in educating young and old alike. Of the qualities it takes to make a good wildlife photographer, patience is perhaps the most obvious- you just have to be prepared to sit it out. I'm actually more patient now because I write more than ever before, and as I've got a bit of paper and a pencil, I don't feel I'm wasting my time. And because I photograph such a wide range of things, even if the main target doesn't appear I can probably find something else to concentrate on instead.

    ...view full instructions

    Why did  she get her first camera?
    Solution
    The first sentence of the second paragraph "I didn't get my first camera until I'd graduated, when I was due to go diving in Norway and needed a method of recording the sea creatures I would find there'. clearly shows her desire to record the sea creatures and to be able to look back at what she had sen is the correct option. The word 'why' in the questions hols the key to the answer. 
    Hence option A "she needed to be able to look back at what she had seen" is the correct answer.
  • Question 4
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    [passage-header]Read the passage and answer the question following it:[/passage-header]Artists should treat their art as art and take the process of making it as seriously as anyone takes their chosen profession.  Great skill and insight are required in order to create truly original art. Transforming an idea or concept into a technically thought-provoking or emotion-arousing work of art in any medium is a  talent that few people possess. And there you have the "purist's vision".
    Now if an artist wants to create art and never sell it, then he or she never has to worry about how to price it. That artist can afford to be a "purist". as you put it, produce art free of any encumbrances or concerns about what the art world or anyone else might think, and avoid "prostituting" or "debasing" that art by placing dollar values on it." But if you're an artist who wants to sell your art or who has to sell it in order to survive as an artist, you must use whatever tools are available to figure out how much it's worth and how best to sell it.
    Let's say you're just starting out as an artist, you have little or no experience showing or selling your work, and in a period of two minutes, you produce a pencil drawing on a piece of paper. You view this drawing as highly significant in your evolution as an artist and rank its creation as the single most important creative moment of your life.
    Consequently, you put a price of $20,000 on it because only for that amount of money will you agree to part with such an important work of art. This is a "purist's vision" approach to pricing as opposed to a "realities of the marketplace" approach.
    From a business standpoint, you'll have an extremely difficult time selling you drawing, as you won't be able to justify the  $20,000 price to real art buyers in the real art world. You have no track record of selling art in that price range, and you have few or no shows, critical reviews, or supporting data from outside sources indicating that your art has that kind of value or collectibility in the marketplace. The overwhelming majority of art buyers who have $20,000 to spend look for works of art by established artists with documented track records of showing and selling art in that price range.
    Your drawing is still highly significant to you, but what someone is willing to pay for it on the open market is a matter for ary buyers to decide. You can price it however you wish, but you can never force anyone to buy it. That's the way the art business works. So if you want to sell it, you have to figure out what dollar amount someone is likely to pay for it on the open market and then price it at that amount. But the tale of your drawing does not end here.
    The art world may, one agree with you that the product of you two-minute moment precipitates a major transformational turning point in your career, and is well worth a $20,000 asking price, but you're going to have to prove first. Aspects of that drawing will have to be reflected in your art from the moment you created it onwards, the art world will have to recognize your art both critically and from the marketing standpoints, and you will have to successfully produce, show, and sell for many years. Then one day, when you first retrospective exhibition opens at the Four-Star Museum of Art, that drawing will hand framed and captioned as the first inspiration for all subsequent work. The art world will then understand and respect its significance, and a  serious collector may well be willing to pay an extraordinary price to own this historically important document of your career.
    Returning for a moment to the concept of a purist artist who creates art and never sells it, sooner or later (hopefully later), that purist will pass on and leave behind a body of work. Unless that artist leaves specific instructions in his or her will for that body of work to be destroyed, it will become subject to those market forces that the artist strived for a lifetime to avoid. At the very least. it'll have to be appraised for tax, donation, or inheritance purposes. In most cases, it eventually comes onto the market either through a probable sale, an auction, or as represented by a dealer, gallery, or family member. The moral of the story is that one way or another,  someone somewhere at some point in time will use tried and true methods to realistically price and either sell, donate, trade or otherwise transact any work of art that comes onto the market in any way, shape, or form. I hope that the person will be you, the artist and that you'll price your art according to what the market will bear, sell plenty of it, and have a long and rewarding career. Answer the following questions indicating your option for each question:

    ...view full instructions

    The purist's art is ________.
    Solution
    In the second paragraph, second sentence it is mentioned that, "That artist can afford to be a purist, as you put is, produce art free of any encumbrances or concerns about what the art world or anyone else might think, and avoid prostituting or debasing hat art....', clearly suggests option (d) is the correct answer. Other options provide partial clues.
  • Question 5
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    [passage-header]Read the passage and answer the question following it:[/passage-header]Artists should treat their art as art and take the process of making it as seriously as anyone takes their chosen profession.  Great skill and insight are required in order to create truly original art. Transforming an idea or concept into a technically thought-provoking or emotion-arousing work of art in any medium is a  talent that few people possess. And there you have the "purist's vision".
    Now if an artist wants to create art and never sell it, then he or she never has to worry about how to price it. That artist can afford to be a "purist". as you put it, produce art free of any encumbrances or concerns about what the art world or anyone else might think, and avoid "prostituting" or "debasing" that art by placing dollar values on it." But if you're an artist who wants to sell your art or who has to sell it in order to survive as an artist, you must use whatever tools are available to figure out how much it's worth and how best to sell it.
    Let's say you're just starting out as an artist, you have little or no experience showing or selling your work, and in a period of two minutes, you produce a pencil drawing on a piece of paper. You view this drawing as highly significant in your evolution as an artist and rank its creation as the single most important creative moment of your life.
    Consequently, you put a price of $20,000 on it because only for that amount of money will you agree to part with such an important work of art. This is a "purist's vision" approach to pricing as opposed to a "realities of the marketplace" approach.
    From a business standpoint, you'll have an extremely difficult time selling you drawing, as you won't be able to justify the  $20,000 price to real art buyers in the real art world. You have no track record of selling art in that price range, and you have few or no shows, critical reviews, or supporting data from outside sources indicating that your art has that kind of value or collectibility in the marketplace. The overwhelming majority of art buyers who have $20,000 to spend look for works of art by established artists with documented track records of showing and selling art in that price range.
    Your drawing is still highly significant to you, but what someone is willing to pay for it on the open market is a matter for ary buyers to decide. You can price it however you wish, but you can never force anyone to buy it. That's the way the art business works. So if you want to sell it, you have to figure out what dollar amount someone is likely to pay for it on the open market and then price it at that amount. But the tale of your drawing does not end here.
    The art world may, one agree with you that the product of you two-minute moment precipitates a major transformational turning point in your career, and is well worth a $20,000 asking price, but you're going to have to prove first. Aspects of that drawing will have to be reflected in your art from the moment you created it onwards, the art world will have to recognize your art both critically and from the marketing standpoints, and you will have to successfully produce, show, and sell for many years. Then one day, when you first retrospective exhibition opens at the Four-Star Museum of Art, that drawing will hand framed and captioned as the first inspiration for all subsequent work. The art world will then understand and respect its significance, and a  serious collector may well be willing to pay an extraordinary price to own this historically important document of your career.
    Returning for a moment to the concept of a purist artist who creates art and never sells it, sooner or later (hopefully later), that purist will pass on and leave behind a body of work. Unless that artist leaves specific instructions in his or her will for that body of work to be destroyed, it will become subject to those market forces that the artist strived for a lifetime to avoid. At the very least. it'll have to be appraised for tax, donation, or inheritance purposes. In most cases, it eventually comes onto the market either through a probable sale, an auction, or as represented by a dealer, gallery, or family member. The moral of the story is that one way or another,  someone somewhere at some point in time will use tried and true methods to realistically price and either sell, donate, trade or otherwise transact any work of art that comes onto the market in any way, shape, or form. I hope that the person will be you, the artist and that you'll price your art according to what the market will bear, sell plenty of it, and have a long and rewarding career. Answer the following questions indicating your option for each question:

    ...view full instructions

    The "realities of the marketplace" approach entails
    (a) "prostituting" one's art by putting a dollar price on it
    (b) gauging the market value of one's art and then putting a price on it
    (c) compromising on one's estimation of ones own art as far as its wreath- in financial terms is concerned
    (d) subjecting one's art to the buyer's interpretation of it
    Solution
    In the second paragraph 'realities of the market place' are compared with --- prostituting or debasing the product (here, art) by placing dollar values on it. Therefore option (a) is the correct pick.
  • Question 6
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    [passage-header]Read the passage and answer the question following it:[/passage-header]Artists should treat their art as art and take the process of making it as seriously as anyone takes their chosen profession.  Great skill and insight are required in order to create truly original art. Transforming an idea or concept into a technically thought-provoking or emotion-arousing work of art in any medium is a  talent that few people possess. And there you have the "purist's vision".
    Now if an artist wants to create art and never sell it, then he or she never has to worry about how to price it. That artist can afford to be a "purist". as you put it, produce art free of any encumbrances or concerns about what the art world or anyone else might think, and avoid "prostituting" or "debasing" that art by placing dollar values on it." But if you're an artist who wants to sell your art or who has to sell it in order to survive as an artist, you must use whatever tools are available to figure out how much it's worth and how best to sell it.
    Let's say you're just starting out as an artist, you have little or no experience showing or selling your work, and in a period of two minutes, you produce a pencil drawing on a piece of paper. You view this drawing as highly significant in your evolution as an artist and rank its creation as the single most important creative moment of your life.
    Consequently, you put a price of $20,000 on it because only for that amount of money will you agree to part with such an important work of art. This is a "purist's vision" approach to pricing as opposed to a "realities of the marketplace" approach.
    From a business standpoint, you'll have an extremely difficult time selling you drawing, as you won't be able to justify the  $20,000 price to real art buyers in the real art world. You have no track record of selling art in that price range, and you have few or no shows, critical reviews, or supporting data from outside sources indicating that your art has that kind of value or collectibility in the marketplace. The overwhelming majority of art buyers who have $20,000 to spend look for works of art by established artists with documented track records of showing and selling art in that price range.
    Your drawing is still highly significant to you, but what someone is willing to pay for it on the open market is a matter for ary buyers to decide. You can price it however you wish, but you can never force anyone to buy it. That's the way the art business works. So if you want to sell it, you have to figure out what dollar amount someone is likely to pay for it on the open market and then price it at that amount. But the tale of your drawing does not end here.
    The art world may, one agree with you that the product of you two-minute moment precipitates a major transformational turning point in your career, and is well worth a $20,000 asking price, but you're going to have to prove first. Aspects of that drawing will have to be reflected in your art from the moment you created it onwards, the art world will have to recognize your art both critically and from the marketing standpoints, and you will have to successfully produce, show, and sell for many years. Then one day, when you first retrospective exhibition opens at the Four-Star Museum of Art, that drawing will hand framed and captioned as the first inspiration for all subsequent work. The art world will then understand and respect its significance, and a  serious collector may well be willing to pay an extraordinary price to own this historically important document of your career.
    Returning for a moment to the concept of a purist artist who creates art and never sells it, sooner or later (hopefully later), that purist will pass on and leave behind a body of work. Unless that artist leaves specific instructions in his or her will for that body of work to be destroyed, it will become subject to those market forces that the artist strived for a lifetime to avoid. At the very least. it'll have to be appraised for tax, donation, or inheritance purposes. In most cases, it eventually comes onto the market either through a probable sale, an auction, or as represented by a dealer, gallery, or family member. The moral of the story is that one way or another,  someone somewhere at some point in time will use tried and true methods to realistically price and either sell, donate, trade or otherwise transact any work of art that comes onto the market in any way, shape, or form. I hope that the person will be you, the artist and that you'll price your art according to what the market will bear, sell plenty of it, and have a long and rewarding career. Answer the following questions indicating your option for each question:

    ...view full instructions

    From the point of view of the purist, the irony as far as pricing art is concerned is that:
    (a) a piece from his collection is eventually sold at the same price that he had estimated it to be its real worth years earlier
    (b) his art is subjected to the same market forces against which he strove his entire life
    (c) "realities of the market place" is a concept that negates the very atributes that we associate with art- whim, fancy and imagination
    Solution
    Last two sentences of the 3rd paragraph suggest option (c) is the irony associated with pricing art, from the purist point of view. Other options are not appropriate.
  • Question 7
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    [passage-header]Read the given passage carefully and attempt the question that follows:[/passage-header]MY LOVE FOR NATURE, goes right back to my childhood, to the times when I stayed on my grandparents' firm in Suffolk. My father was in the armed forces, so we were always moving and didn't have a home base for any length of time, but I loved going there. I think it was my grandmother who encouraged me more than anyone: she taught me the names of wildflowers and got me interested in looking at the countryside, so it seemed obvious to go on to do Zoology at University.

    I didn't get my first camera until after I'd graduated when I was due to go diving in Norway and needed a method of recording the sea creatures I would find there. My father didn't know anything about photography, but he bought me an Exacta, which was really quite a good camera for the time, and I went off to take my first pictures of sea anemones and starfish. I became keen very quickly, and learned how to develop and print; obviously I didn't have much money in those days, so I did more black and white photography than color, but it was all still using the camera very much as a tool to record what I found both by diving and on the shore. I had no ambition at all to be a photographer then, or even for some years afterward.

    Unlike many of the wildlife photographers of the time, I trained as a scientist and therefore my way of expressing myself is very different. I've tried from the beginning to produce pictures which are always biologically correct. There are people who will alter things deliberately: you don't pick up sea creatures from the middle of the shore and take them down to attractive pools at the bottom of the shore without knowing you're doing it. In so doing you're actually falsifying the sort of seaweeds they live on and so on, which may seem unimportant, but it is actually changing the natural surroundings, to make them prettier. Unfortunately, many of the people who select are looking for attractive images and, at the end of the day, whether it's truthful or not doesn't really matter to them.

    It's important to think about the animal first, and there are many occasions when I've not taken a picture because it would have been too disturbing. Nothing is so important that you have to get that shot; of course, there are cases when it would be very sad if you didn't, but it's not the end of the world. There can be a lot of ignorance in people's behavior towards wild animals and it's a problem that more and more people are going to wild places: while some animals may get used to cars, they won't get used to people suddenly rushing up to them. The sheer pressure of people,  coupled with the fact that there are increasingly fewer places where no-one else has photographed, means that over the years, life has become much more difficult for the professional wildlife photographer.

    Nevertheless, wildlife photography plays a very important part in educating people about what is out there and what needs conserving. Although photography can be an enjoyable pastime, as it is to many people, it is also something that plays a very important part in educating young and old alike. Of the qualities it takes to make a good wildlife photographer, patience is perhaps the most obvious- you just have to be prepared to sit it out. I'm actually more patient now because I write more than ever before, and as I've got a bit of paper and a pencil, I don't feel I'm wasting my time. And because I photograph such a wide range of things, even if the main target doesn't appear I can probably find something else to concentrate on instead.

    ...view full instructions

    What the writer means by 'ignorance in people's behaviour' is ________
    Solution
    In the first line of the fourth paragraph it is mentioned that, 'It's important to think about the animal first, and there are many occasions when I've not, taken a picture because it would have been too disturbing'. Considering the earlier descriptions of professional photographers and occasional photographers option (d) is correct. The line 'there can be a lot of ignorance in people's behaviour towards wild animals' justifies option (d)
  • Question 8
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    Read the given passage carefully and answer the question that follows.

        There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to morality and that its production probably so,  does not go far enough. These activities are not only opposed to morality but also to the law if the legal objection can be added to the moral, the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has a deleterious effect on mankind.
        To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
            A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear were added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the ling biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or more. Postwar survivors would face starvation as well as freezing conditions in the dark and be exposed to near-lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not affected directly, because of the interdependence of the world economy. 
    In either case the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seem possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.

    ...view full instructions

    The author of the passage seems to be of the view that
    Solution
    The second sentence of the 2nd paragraph supports the answer that utilization of valuable knowledge for manufacture of lethal weapons is inhuman.
  • Question 9
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    Read the following passage and answer the following question. Choice can be of more than one option, however choose the accurate option(s) that answers the question.  

        One of the most prolific authors of all time, Isaac Asimov was influential both in science fiction and in the popularization of science during the twentieth century, but he is also justly famous for the scope of his interest. Although the common claim that Asimov is the only author to have written a book in every category of the Dewey decimal system is untrue, its spirit provides an accurate picture of the man: a dedicated humanist who lauded the  far-reaching power of reason. His most famous work, the Foundation trilogy, can be read as an illustration of Asimov's belief in reason and science, but even while he expressed that belief, science itself was calling it into question.

        Foundation describes a time which a vast Empire spanning the galaxy is on the verge of collapse. Its inevitable doom is a consequence not if its size, but of the shortsightedness of its leaders. In this environment, a scientist named Hari Seldon devises an all encompassing plan to help human civilization recover from the trauma of the Empire's coming collapse. Using mathematics, Seldon is able to predict the future course of history of thousands of years, and he takes steps that are geared toward guiding that future in a beneficial direction. The trope of the benevolent and paternalistic scientist shaping existence from behind the scenes, present in much of Asimov's fiction, is never more explicit than in the Foundation series, which describes with an epic sweep the course and progress of the Seldon Plan.

        As naive and, perhaps, self-serving as the conceit of Foundation may seem to contemporary readers, it retains to some degree its ability of comfort by offering and antidote to the complex and unpredictable nature of experience. Science in Asimov's time was, in popular conceptions, engaged in just this pursuit: discerning immutable laws that operate beneath a surface appearance of contingency, inexplicability, and change. But even while Asimov wrote, science itself was changing. In Physics, the study of matter at the subatomic level showed that indeterminacy was not a transitory difficulty to be overcome, but an essential physical principle. In Biology, the sense of evolution as a steady progress toward better adapted forms was being disturbed by proof of a past large-scale evolution taking place in brief explosions, of frantic change. At the time of Asimov's death, even Mathematics was gaining popular notice for its interest in chaos and inexplicability.

    Usually summarized in terms of the so-called 'butterfly effect', chaos theory showed that perfect prediction could take place only on the basis of perfect information, which was by nature impossible to obtain. Science had dispensed with very assumptions that motivated Asimov's idealization of it in the Seldon Plan. Indeed, it was possible to see chaos at work in Foundation itself: as sequels multiplied and began to be tied into narrative threads from Asimov's other novels, the urge to weave one grand narrative spawned myriad internal inconsistencies that were never resolved.

    ...view full instructions

    Which one of the following statements best illustrates the "butterfly effect" as it is described in the passage's third paragraph?
    Solution
    In the third paragraph it is mentioned that, 'In Physics, the study of matter at the subatomic level showed that indeterminacy was not a transitory difficult to be overcome, but an essential physical principle'. Therefore option (b) is the appropriate choice.
  • Question 10
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    Read the following passage and answer the following question. Choice can be of more than one option, however choose the accurate option(s) that answers the question.  

        One of the most prolific authors of all time, Isaac Asimov was influential both in science fiction and in the popularization of science during the twentieth century, but he is also justly famous for the scope of his interest. Although the common claim that Asimov is the only author to have written a book in every category of the Dewey decimal system is untrue, its spirit provides an accurate picture of the man: a dedicated humanist who lauded the  far-reaching power of reason. His most famous work, the Foundation trilogy, can be read as an illustration of Asimov's belief in reason and science, but even while he expressed that belief, science itself was calling it into question.

        Foundation describes a time which a vast Empire spanning the galaxy is on the verge of collapse. Its inevitable doom is a consequence not if its size, but of the shortsightedness of its leaders. In this environment, a scientist named Hari Seldon devises an all encompassing plan to help human civilization recover from the trauma of the Empire's coming collapse. Using mathematics, Seldon is able to predict the future course of history of thousands of years, and he takes steps that are geared toward guiding that future in a beneficial direction. The trope of the benevolent and paternalistic scientist shaping existence from behind the scenes, present in much of Asimov's fiction, is never more explicit than in the Foundation series, which describes with an epic sweep the course and progress of the Seldon Plan.

        As naive and, perhaps, self-serving as the conceit of Foundation may seem to contemporary readers, it retains to some degree its ability of comfort by offering and antidote to the complex and unpredictable nature of experience. Science in Asimov's time was, in popular conceptions, engaged in just this pursuit: discerning immutable laws that operate beneath a surface appearance of contingency, inexplicability, and change. But even while Asimov wrote, science itself was changing. In Physics, the study of matter at the subatomic level showed that indeterminacy was not a transitory difficulty to be overcome, but an essential physical principle. In Biology, the sense of evolution as a steady progress toward better adapted forms was being disturbed by proof of a past large-scale evolution taking place in brief explosions, of frantic change. At the time of Asimov's death, even Mathematics was gaining popular notice for its interest in chaos and inexplicability.

    Usually summarized in terms of the so-called 'butterfly effect', chaos theory showed that perfect prediction could take place only on the basis of perfect information, which was by nature impossible to obtain. Science had dispensed with very assumptions that motivated Asimov's idealization of it in the Seldon Plan. Indeed, it was possible to see chaos at work in Foundation itself: as sequels multiplied and began to be tied into narrative threads from Asimov's other novels, the urge to weave one grand narrative spawned myriad internal inconsistencies that were never resolved.

    ...view full instructions

    Which one of the following statements most accurately expresses the purpose of the final paragraph?
    Solution
    The opening sentence of the last paragraph clearly shows that a key theme of Asimov's Foundation series is described and discoveries in science that seem contrary to that theme are outlined.
Self Studies
User
Question Analysis
  • Correct -

  • Wrong -

  • Skipped -

My Perfomance
  • Score

    -

    out of -
  • Rank

    -

    out of -
Re-Attempt Weekly Quiz Competition
Self Studies Get latest Exam Updates
& Study Material Alerts!
No, Thanks
Self Studies
Click on Allow to receive notifications
Allow Notification
Self Studies
Self Studies Self Studies
To enable notifications follow this 2 steps:
  • First Click on Secure Icon Self Studies
  • Second click on the toggle icon
Allow Notification
Get latest Exam Updates & FREE Study Material Alerts!
Self Studies ×
Open Now