DIRECTIONS for Questions 21 to 23: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
Light from distant galaxies tells us that the universe is expanding-one of the main pieces of evidence that space, time and everything came into existence a little over 12bn years ago in the big bang. In 1998 astronomers, trying to find out whether the expansion will continue forever, or grind to a halt and reverse itself in a big crunch, discovered something much more puzzling. The expansion is speeding up. To explain this baffling acceleration, the cosmologists invented dark energy, a mysterious force that pushes the universe apart. Does dark energy exist? No one knows. At present nothing known to physics can explain it, so something unknown to physics must be the cause. It's like something out of Star Wars. In February this year, American cosmologists Gia Dvali and Michael S Turner put forward a different theory, one in which dark energy does not exist. Instead, gravity is leaking out of our universe into an extra dimension. With less gravity to hold the universe together, it is coming apart faster than expected. It also sounds like something out of Star Wars. Hidden dimensions? Only in the late 20th and early 21st centuries could physicists say this kind of thing with a straight face. It is a concept associated with Victorian spiritualists, who invented the fourth dimension as a convenient place to hide everything that didn't make sense in the familiar three. We spent the first half of the 20th century learning that the universe is far stranger than we imagined. Albert Einstein taught us that not only do space and time together make up a four-dimensional continuum; they also get mixed up with each other if we move fast enough-this is relativity. And Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrzger and Paul Dirac discovered that on the tiniest of scales, the universe is plain weird: the quantum world, in which matter is made of waves and cats can be alive and dead at the same time.
We spent the last half of the 20th century puzzling over one gigantic discrepancy: relativity and quantum theory contradict each other. Each works well within its own domain-the very large for relativity, the very small for quantum theory. But when those domains overlap, as they do when we want to understand the early history of the universe, the combination doesn't work. And so science set off on a quest for a single theory that would unify the whole of physics into a single mathematical law. And out of that quest came a strong suspicion that the familiar three dimensions of space and a fourth of time are mere scratches on the surface of something far bigger. Could the universe be made from ten-dimensional "superstrings," maybe, with six tightly curled dimensions that are so small we never notice them? Or is the universe just a four-dimensional "brane" floating in a many-dimensional metaverse, like a skin of congealed milk on a cup of coffee? Somewhere in that half century, physics lost contact with the world in which most of us live. However, it is worth recognising that their world may be more real than ours; the human-centred viewpoint works fine for activities like politics and art, but it may not be appropriate for a universe that operates in inhuman ways and on scales that the human mind did not evolve to contemplate.
21. Which of the following cannot be inferred from the passage?
a. Physicists have struggled for decades to find a grand unified theory.
b. Space and time can get mixed up at very high speeds.
c. Dark energy was the cosmologists' invention to explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
d. Dark energy has its own, very structurally defined, dimensions.
22. By saying physics lost contact with the world, the author means:
a. Physics created a world of its own.
b. There was no compassion left in the world of physics.
c. Physics became larger than life.
d. Physics became difficult to handle.
23. According to the author, why is it difficult to explain the hidden dimension?
a. Because the Victorians projected it as a trivial object.
b. Because gravity pushed everything there.
c. Because it seems straight out of a star wars movie.
d. None of the above
Light from distant galaxies tells us that the universe is expanding-one of the main pieces of evidence that space, time and everything came into existence a little over 12bn years ago in the big bang. In 1998 astronomers, trying to find out whether the expansion will continue forever, or grind to a halt and reverse itself in a big crunch, discovered something much more puzzling. The expansion is speeding up. To explain this baffling acceleration, the cosmologists invented dark energy, a mysterious force that pushes the universe apart. Does dark energy exist? No one knows. At present nothing known to physics can explain it, so something unknown to physics must be the cause. It's like something out of Star Wars. In February this year, American cosmologists Gia Dvali and Michael S Turner put forward a different theory, one in which dark energy does not exist. Instead, gravity is leaking out of our universe into an extra dimension. With less gravity to hold the universe together, it is coming apart faster than expected. It also sounds like something out of Star Wars. Hidden dimensions? Only in the late 20th and early 21st centuries could physicists say this kind of thing with a straight face. It is a concept associated with Victorian spiritualists, who invented the fourth dimension as a convenient place to hide everything that didn't make sense in the familiar three. We spent the first half of the 20th century learning that the universe is far stranger than we imagined. Albert Einstein taught us that not only do space and time together make up a four-dimensional continuum; they also get mixed up with each other if we move fast enough-this is relativity. And Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrzger and Paul Dirac discovered that on the tiniest of scales, the universe is plain weird: the quantum world, in which matter is made of waves and cats can be alive and dead at the same time.
We spent the last half of the 20th century puzzling over one gigantic discrepancy: relativity and quantum theory contradict each other. Each works well within its own domain-the very large for relativity, the very small for quantum theory. But when those domains overlap, as they do when we want to understand the early history of the universe, the combination doesn't work. And so science set off on a quest for a single theory that would unify the whole of physics into a single mathematical law. And out of that quest came a strong suspicion that the familiar three dimensions of space and a fourth of time are mere scratches on the surface of something far bigger. Could the universe be made from ten-dimensional "superstrings," maybe, with six tightly curled dimensions that are so small we never notice them? Or is the universe just a four-dimensional "brane" floating in a many-dimensional metaverse, like a skin of congealed milk on a cup of coffee? Somewhere in that half century, physics lost contact with the world in which most of us live. However, it is worth recognising that their world may be more real than ours; the human-centred viewpoint works fine for activities like politics and art, but it may not be appropriate for a universe that operates in inhuman ways and on scales that the human mind did not evolve to contemplate.
21. Which of the following cannot be inferred from the passage?
a. Physicists have struggled for decades to find a grand unified theory.
b. Space and time can get mixed up at very high speeds.
c. Dark energy was the cosmologists' invention to explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
d. Dark energy has its own, very structurally defined, dimensions.
22. By saying physics lost contact with the world, the author means:
a. Physics created a world of its own.
b. There was no compassion left in the world of physics.
c. Physics became larger than life.
d. Physics became difficult to handle.
23. According to the author, why is it difficult to explain the hidden dimension?
a. Because the Victorians projected it as a trivial object.
b. Because gravity pushed everything there.
c. Because it seems straight out of a star wars movie.
d. None of the above
DIRECTIONS for Questions 28 to 30: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
A convincing message must be logical, and in a political discourse this means, according to Aristotle, that a proposal must have obvious advantages compared to an alternative. The pro-Constitution campaign did indeed concentrate on the advantages of the new treaty. Quite logical. However, two remarks must be made.
In the first place: the campaigners confused "this is better" and "this is good". Again and again, they said that the proposed Constitution was an improvement compared to the old treaty of Nice. This was true, because the European Parliament was to receive greater powers and democratic controls increased. Many people will consider these things to be improvements, and therefore, the campaigners argued, the Dutch could agree with the Constitution.
But the issue was not whether the new treaty was better for Europe; it was presented as good for Europe. And this was not the whole truth. Better is not good enough. It might be argued, for example, that no treaty could be called a "good constitution" as long as it did not give the power of initiative to the European Parliament; a beefed-up parliament without this vital power cannot be called democratic. Voters could have very sound reasons to think that this treaty was not sufficient, even though they could agree that it was better than the current treaty.
In the second place: what is logic? Not everybody considers the same appeals to be valid. Here is an argument that was really mentioned: "The Eastern Europeans do not support the Dutch during the Eurovision Song Contest, so we will not support a treaty that is benefical to Eastern Europe." It is understandable that many people thought that this was really irrelevant, but there were people who thought that it was perfectly logical.
It was rather tactless of the Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bot, to declare that the Song Contest argument was "holding things upside down", and equally tactless was his suggestion that people should stay away from the polling stations if they did not understand what the treaty was about.
Not only were these remarks tactless, they also disregarded the nature of democracy. If the best policy could be deduced logically, we could give supreme power to a group of philosophers and live happily ever after. We do not do this, because even the greatest sages make mistakes.
28. Which of the following can be inferred from the discussion about the proposed constitution ?
a. The campaigners had more clarity than the people about the meanings of 'good' and 'better'.
b. Voters agreed that the proposed constitution was better than the current treaty.
c. The improvements presented by the campaigners could not be seen as 'good' by the people.
d. The campaigners sent the message that the constitution was better for Europe when it was actually good for Europe.
29. Which of the following would be in line with the author's views in the passage ?
a. What appears logical to one may not appear logical to the other.
b. The Dutch Minister , Mr Bot did not have a sound conception of logic.
c. Aristotle's concept of a convincing argument is flawed as it does not talk about 'tact'.
d. One should not use logic to decide the best policy in the political sphere unless one is a philosopher or a sage.
30. The primary purpose of the author in the passage is to
a. Argue that the campaigners did not apply Aristotle's theory properly and hence failed in their quest.
b. Show that Aristotle's theory regarding a convincing message in a political discourse is irrelevant when we come to its application.
c. Show that Aristotle's theory on political discourse can pose problems when it comes to its application in deciding the best policy in political matters.
d. Prove that one cannot entrust the country's policymaking completely to philosophers.
A convincing message must be logical, and in a political discourse this means, according to Aristotle, that a proposal must have obvious advantages compared to an alternative. The pro-Constitution campaign did indeed concentrate on the advantages of the new treaty. Quite logical. However, two remarks must be made.
In the first place: the campaigners confused "this is better" and "this is good". Again and again, they said that the proposed Constitution was an improvement compared to the old treaty of Nice. This was true, because the European Parliament was to receive greater powers and democratic controls increased. Many people will consider these things to be improvements, and therefore, the campaigners argued, the Dutch could agree with the Constitution.
But the issue was not whether the new treaty was better for Europe; it was presented as good for Europe. And this was not the whole truth. Better is not good enough. It might be argued, for example, that no treaty could be called a "good constitution" as long as it did not give the power of initiative to the European Parliament; a beefed-up parliament without this vital power cannot be called democratic. Voters could have very sound reasons to think that this treaty was not sufficient, even though they could agree that it was better than the current treaty.
In the second place: what is logic? Not everybody considers the same appeals to be valid. Here is an argument that was really mentioned: "The Eastern Europeans do not support the Dutch during the Eurovision Song Contest, so we will not support a treaty that is benefical to Eastern Europe." It is understandable that many people thought that this was really irrelevant, but there were people who thought that it was perfectly logical.
It was rather tactless of the Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bot, to declare that the Song Contest argument was "holding things upside down", and equally tactless was his suggestion that people should stay away from the polling stations if they did not understand what the treaty was about.
Not only were these remarks tactless, they also disregarded the nature of democracy. If the best policy could be deduced logically, we could give supreme power to a group of philosophers and live happily ever after. We do not do this, because even the greatest sages make mistakes.
28. Which of the following can be inferred from the discussion about the proposed constitution ?
a. The campaigners had more clarity than the people about the meanings of 'good' and 'better'.
b. Voters agreed that the proposed constitution was better than the current treaty.
c. The improvements presented by the campaigners could not be seen as 'good' by the people.
d. The campaigners sent the message that the constitution was better for Europe when it was actually good for Europe.
29. Which of the following would be in line with the author's views in the passage ?
a. What appears logical to one may not appear logical to the other.
b. The Dutch Minister , Mr Bot did not have a sound conception of logic.
c. Aristotle's concept of a convincing argument is flawed as it does not talk about 'tact'.
d. One should not use logic to decide the best policy in the political sphere unless one is a philosopher or a sage.
30. The primary purpose of the author in the passage is to
a. Argue that the campaigners did not apply Aristotle's theory properly and hence failed in their quest.
b. Show that Aristotle's theory regarding a convincing message in a political discourse is irrelevant when we come to its application.
c. Show that Aristotle's theory on political discourse can pose problems when it comes to its application in deciding the best policy in political matters.
d. Prove that one cannot entrust the country's policymaking completely to philosophers.
No comments:
Post a Comment