The first paragraph critiques the stringent planetary protection policies advocated by a group of scientists who
aim to prevent biological contamination of celestial bodies. The author portrays these efforts as excessive,
particularly given the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life, and highlights the significant financial burden
these measures place on space agencies like NASA. Option A accurately reflects this scepticism, as the author
questions the need to sterilize planets where life has not been proven to exist.
Option B is incorrect because the author is not equivocal (i.e., ambiguous or undecided); instead, he expresses
a clear stance against these strict protocols. Option C is also inaccurate, as the author is not indifferent to
elitism but rather critiques the scientists’ restrictive approach. Similarly, Option D can be eliminated because
the author does not approve of NASA's spending on sterilization but views it as an unnecessary expense.

The passage highlights contrasting reactions to two instances of potential contamination of the lunar
environment: China’s germination of a plant seed on the Moon, which elicited little controversy, and Israel’s
accidental release of tardigrades aboard the Beresheet probe, which sparked significant backlash within the
space community. This contrast underscores differences in how national or regional scientific communities
respond to issues of planetary protection. Option C most closely reflects this idea.
The passage does not suggest that contamination from animals is inherently more harmful than from plants, as
suggested in Option A. Similarly, Option B inaccurately implies that the passage endorses China’s approach as
inherently “reasonable,” which it does not. Option D diverges a bit from the discussion by emphasising global
biases against specific countries, but the passage provides no evidence of such biases, focusing instead on
scientific reactions.

The passage discusses the debate surrounding planetary protection policies, particularly the concerns about
contaminating Mars with Earth-based microbes. The author argues against these concerns, citing several
reasons why the risk of contamination should not hinder human exploration and development of Mars. These
reasons include:
the lack of evidence for life on Mars (describes Mars as a “bleak, rusted landscape” with no confirmed life)
[Option A]
the disregard for such protocols by international competitors (China’s lenient approach to planetary
protection) [Option B]
the historical precedent of contamination from earlier human missions (Apollo missions left waste on the
Moon) [Option D]
On the other hand, Option C is not presented as a valid reason. The author does not specifically argue that
probes have had “little effect” on the Moon's environment but instead focuses on human waste and
contamination from earlier human missions, not robotic probes.

The phrase “unlikely to disagree + EXCEPT” can seem tricky to interpret. In simple terms, the question requires
us to find a statement the author will disagree with. Let us inspect the choices -
Option A: The author supports the proposal for zonal segregation as a reasonable compromise, balancing
scientific exploration with human settlement.
Option B: The author agrees that NASA’s earlier missions did not prioritise contamination but implies they
caused no significant harm.
Option C: This viewpoint reflects a cautious approach to space exploration. The author dismisses concerns
about hypothetical extraterrestrial life as speculative and prioritises human exploration and development over
minimising contamination. Therefore, he’s likely to disagree with this position.
Option D: In the passage, the author argues that the costs of maintaining strict planetary protection measures
are excessive and could undermine future exploration efforts. This is consistent with his stance.
Hence, Option C is the best choice.

The passage discusses the challenges of regulating innovations in biotechnology. It highlights two key issues:
(i) current regulations are outdated and insufficient for new biological advancements, and (ii) the unpredictable
nature of living entities and rapid technological changes make it difficult to design a regulatory framework that
anticipates all risks and contingencies. The core question is whether regulation can ever keep pace with the
unpredictable and unique outcomes of biotechnology. Option C correctly touches upon these ideas.
The other options are either too narrow or miss the essence. Option A focuses on calibration and scientists'
roles, which is not the central concern of the passage. Similarly, Option B highlights the urgency for new rules
but omits the skepticism about achieving comprehensive regulation. Option D overemphasises the
impossibility of imagining all risks without addressing the need for flexibility in regulations.
Hence, Option C is the best choice.

A good starting point here would be to link sentences 5 and 3 based on the idea of “pruning.” Sentence 5 talks
about the synaptic development that occurs during the early period described in sentences 4 and 2. It describes
how synapses are initially overproduced, a concept that sets up the next part of the process: synaptic pruning.
Sentence 3 continues this discussion by offering an explanation for why synapses are pruned: to reinforce the
necessary connections and eliminate the weaker ones. This helps to fine-tune the brain’s wiring, ensuring that
the important pathways are retained while the less useful ones are discarded. Together, 5-3 ties in with the
broader purpose of neural wiring presented in Sentence 2: it emphasises that the creation of neural
connections in the fetus is a preparatory stage and that these connections are essential for the future
performance of the visual system. Sentence 4 sets the context of the paragraph: it mentions the formation of
neural connections before birth, specifically focusing on the connections between the eyes and the brain.

The passage contrasts the personal, introspective nature of lyric poetry with Marxism's outward focus on
societal change. At first glance, the characteristics of lyric poetry - being personal, small-scale, and
idiosyncratic - seem incompatible with Marxism's demand for a transformative critique of an unjust society.
However, the passage introduces a nuanced perspective within Marxist thought, which recognises lyric poetry
as having an implicit critical and utopian function. Through its imaginative and alternative modes of perception,
lyric poetry can challenge dominant ideologies and suggest a vision of resistance to oppression. Thus, while
lyric poetry does not directly engage with large-scale social concerns, it can still align with Marxist ideals by
offering subtle forms of critique and hope for change. Option C most effectively captures this idea.
None of the other choices present a valid interpretation of the passage. For instance, Option A oversimplifies
the issue by portraying lyric poetry as merely ‘utopian,” ignoring its critical and resistant potential as described
in the passage. It misses the nuanced compatibility suggested between lyric poetry and Marxism. Option B
inaccurately suggests that Marxism has “internal contradictions,” which is not the focus of the passage.
Similarly, Option D frames Marxism as dismissive of lyric poetry, ignoring the strand of Marxist thought that
finds value in poetry's alternative perspectives; this misrepresentation makes it a weaker summary

Option C is the correct answer. This option best captures the essence of the passage. The tradwife’s embrace
of traditional roles and vintage fashion naturally contrasts with and highlights the superficiality of modern life.
The passage emphasizes that she is not overtly critiquing society but rather embodying a regressive ideal that
challenges contemporary norms. This fits with how the passage describes her actions—her existence itself is a
challenge to modern societal expectations.
Option A:The passage does not suggest that the tradwife is actively critiquing modern society. Instead, the
tradwife embodies a lifestyle and set of ideals that are in contrast to contemporary values. The critique comes
from others' reactions to her behavior, not from her intentions.
Option B: The passage does not show her as actively trying to expose or mock anything. She simply lives in a
way that contrasts with modern expectations. The "mockery" is a reaction from others, not her goal. Therefore,
this option overstates her intentions.
Option D: This focuses on the tradwife's dress and adherence to traditional roles as the means of revealing
modern life’s artificial nature. While the tradwife does embody these traditional values, the passage is more
focused on how her actions highlight societal superficiality rather than "revealing" it. Additionally, the passage
suggests that her behaviour is not an overt revelation but rather something that others react to—making this
option somewhat distorted.

The author discusses how a liberal arts education, combined with participation in language preservation
efforts, empowers students in several significant ways. He highlights that such an education broadens
students' cultural understanding, helps them communicate across linguistic barriers (Option A), and enables
them to gain insights into both their own and others' cultures (Option D). Option B is an implicit aspect of this
discussion. The passage also suggests that some students may even become involved in active language
preservation, though it emphasises that the majority might not pursue this path. Contrarily, Option C is not
explicitly mentioned or understood: while the passage provides examples of communities that have established
such schools, it does not suggest that students themselves will take on this role.

The passage highlights the widespread extinction of indigenous languages in North America due to
colonisation, physical annihilation, and assimilation policies while noting slightly better survival rates in Central
and South America. It implies that language survival may be influenced by factors such as social policies,
cultural integration, and the extent of physical and cultural displacement.
Evaluating the choices, we note that Option A is plausible since allowing children to stay with families would
help preserve native languages, unlike the North American policy of removing children to boarding schools, as
discussed in the passage. Option B is also reasonable, as less effective assimilation efforts by colonial
governments could lead to better language retention. Option C also aligns with the passage’s context, as it
discusses physical annihilation as a significant driver of language extinction, but the survival rate being slightly
better in South America could suggest marginally less physical annihilation.
However, Option D is problematic; while providing locals with jobs in the colonial administration might seem like
a factor that supports language retention, this scenario is not consistent with the passage. The passage
emphasises that dominant languages often replace indigenous ones through socio-economic pressures, and
employment in colonial administration would likely reinforce the use of the dominant language rather than
preserve native languages.
Hence, Option D is the best choice.

The central idea of the passage is that endangered languages, as carriers of unique cultural perspectives and
human knowledge, must be preserved to benefit humanity. The author argues that liberal arts education plays a
vital role in this preservation, both by fostering global citizenship and by encouraging some individuals to

directly engage in preservation efforts. Liberal arts education, as framed in the passage, sensitises students to
cultural diversity and equips them with the tools to support endangered languages and cultures.
We observe that Option B, however, directly undermines this central idea by redefining the focus of liberal arts
education. Requiring fluency in two of the most widely spoken global languages (e.g., English, Spanish,
Mandarin) would prioritise dominant languages rather than endangered ones. This hypothetical scenario shifts
resources and attention away from the preservation of linguistic diversity, which is central to the passage's
argument. Such a requirement would reinforce the dominance of already powerful languages, the very
phenomenon identified as a major “language killer” in the passage. By institutionalizing the focus on dominant
languages, it would erode the argument that liberal arts education fosters support for endangered languages
and cultural preservation, ultimately weakening the role of liberal arts in addressing language extinction.
In contrast, the remaining choices either align with the discussion or do not serve as strong counterarguments
to the points presented in the passage. For instance, Option A acknowledges that most liberal arts students will
not directly engage in language preservation but does not challenge the broader idea that liberal arts education
fosters empathy and support for endangered languages. Option C limits the long-term success of language
preservation but does not negate its immediate benefits or the potential for renewal in subsequent generations.
Similarly, Option D highlights a limitation of recording dying languages but does not undermine the broader
argument that documentation is a valuable and necessary tool in preservation.

The question asks us to identify the hypothetical scenario that does not reflect the kind of loss described in the
passage. The passage discusses cultural, ecological, and intellectual losses caused by language extinction,
including the loss of:
Unique cultural expressions (e.g., music, art, and emotions tied to language).
Knowledge about the environment (e.g., relationships between plants and illness).
Worldviews and philosophical insights.
We need to identify a scenario that doesn’t align with these themes. Let us examine the options based on this
understanding -
Option A: This scenario reflects the loss of unique cultural knowledge - in this case, the ability to describe the
“20 different moods of the ocean,” which likely represents detailed ecological and environmental
understanding.
Option B: This scenario focuses on some form of administrative or statistical change in a government list; the
focus is not on the cultural, ecological, or intellectual loss emphasised in the passage. Therefore, the option
does not reflect the deeper, humanity-wide loss described in the passage.
Option C: This scenario aligns with the loss of unique cultural concepts and the emotional depth tied to a word
or phrase. In the author’s perspective, losing this concept would diminish humanity's understanding of the
complexity of human relationships.
Option D: This scenario reflects the loss of ecological knowledge about snow textures, which likely has
practical implications for living in the Arctic environment. This aligns with the passage's discussion of losing
environmental wisdom when languages die.
Hence, Option B is the correct choice

To determine where the given sentence fits best, we must consider the logical flow of ideas between
sentences. The sentence in question provides important historical and contextual information about the
photograph. The author begins by describing the image and ends the paragraph by mentioning the official title
of the photo. While sentences offering historical context are typically placed at the beginning, inserting the
sentence in either Blank 1 or 2 would create a disruption in the flow of the image's description. This suggests
that the sentence must fit in either Blank 3 or 4. Offering contextual information after mentioning the title at the
end seems odd; thus, we can eliminate Blank 4.
When we refocus on Blank 3, we see that by this point in the paragraph, the author has just described the
soldiers from the South Vietnamese Army’s 25th Division following behind the children. This sets up a moment
of helplessness that emphasises the chaos and brutality of the scene. The sentence about the trauma and
violence of the war logically follows the description of the soldiers because it explains the broader implications
of the photo’s content, providing a context for the violence and its far-reaching consequences. After discussing
the soldiers, the sentence connects the personal and immediate suffering in the photograph with the larger
scope of the Vietnam War’s impact, which then leads into the official title of the photograph. The official title,
"The Terror of War," is directly linked to the broader theme of violence and destruction that the sentence
describes. Thus, the given sentence naturally sets the stage for introducing the official title and the iconic
nickname, "Napalm Girl," ensuring a smooth and coherent transition.
Hence, Option C is the correct choice.

Let's evaluate the given choices and check if they are consistent with the information in the passage -
Option A: According to the passage, this is not true. The author emphasises that Moutai deliberately avoids
targeting the middle class, as the competition in that market is intense, and instead focuses on the super-rich.
This suggests that marketing to the middle class is not as lucrative or straightforward as it might appear.
Option B: The passage mentions that the Chinese government is Moutai's largest shareholder and potentially
plays a role in controlling the prices of products, which is a key factor for any firm in this market to consider.
Furthermore, the author discusses how the government might further interfere with the operations in this
space: [“... in what some see as a travesty of corporate governance, its majority owner has plans to set up its
own sales channel ...”]
Option C: The author highlights that the premium market in China is still growing and not overcrowded with
luxury brands, indicating a potential opportunity for firms targeting high-end consumers.
Option D: The passage states that many firms have failed in their attempt to cater to the middle class due to
fierce competition. This is a valid consideration for any firm looking to enter the market.
Hence, Option A is the correct choice.

The author uses the phrase “the unholy trinity” to describe Moutai’s marketing strategy, which relies on three
factors: nationalism, elitism, and ageism. The word “unholy” implies that these factors may be unconventional
or controversial, which could be why they are described as such. The author presents this idea in the context of
Western marketing, suggesting that Moutai might have succeeded due to these factors, even though they seem
to defy conventional Western norms. Thus, the phrase reflects how Moutai’s marketing strategy is in stark
contrast to Western business practices (Option C).
Contrarily, Options A, B, and D either do not address the contrast with Western strategies or misinterpret the
focus of the passage. For instance, Option A is not the best choice because the phrase “unholy trinity” isn’t a
comment on the morality of marketing liquor itself but rather on the controversial nature of Moutai’s specific
strategy. Options B and D focus on tangential aspects that are irrelevant to the question.

To identify the factor that is both a reason for Moutai’s success and a potential threat, we could consider
aspects that currently drive demand while also holding the potential to hinder it in the future. Looking at the
given choices, Option A may be a contributing factor to Moutai’s success, as cultural practices around drinking
play a role in its popularity. However, the passage does not explicitly frame this as a threat, especially since it is
deeply ingrained in Chinese society, making this option less fitting. Option C is also a significant reason for
Moutai's success, as it targets the super-wealthy, but the passage does not indicate that this would become a
threat in the future. Option B is presented more as a hurdle to Moutai’s success, while the explicit benefits
remain to be discussed.
On the other hand, we can deduce that Option D is both a key reason for Moutai’s success - by tapping into the
spending power of older consumers - and a potential threat, as the younger generations, with different healthconscious lifestyles, could move away from the heavy drinking culture that has driven Moutai's demand. The
passage specifically highlights this generational shift as a risk to Moutai’s long-term success.
Hence, Option D is the best choice.

The statement in the question draws a comparison between Moutai’s claimed hangover-proof quality and a
groundbreaking historical invention (gunpowder). The use of "would make it" suggests a hypothetical scenario,
and the comparison is meant to emphasise significance, not an actual invention. This indicates that the
comparison is metaphorical/figurative (Option C), conveying the liquor’s potential impact on culture and
society; hence, we can eliminate Option A.
Option B also implies that the comparison is based on actual substance or tangible qualities. Though the claim
about being hangover-proof is substantive, the comparison to gunpowder is not grounded in tangible,
measurable terms but rather in its significance. Similarly, Option D suggests that the phrase equates Moutai
directly with gunpowder, which is incorrect: the phrase does not treat the two as synonyms but draws a
symbolic comparison.
Hence, Option C is the correct choice

Here, Sentences 1, 4, and 5 discuss the general theme of how non-experts or forecasters without specialized
expertise can make accurate predictions, often outperforming experts. Sentence 3 adds context by highlighting
that this success occurs even when experts have access to classified information.
Contrarily, Sentence 2 shifts the focus to the “intelligence community's interest in forecasting models” rather
than continuing the discussion on the accuracy and success of forecasters versus experts. This makes it
unrelated to the main flow of the paragraph.
Let us examine the points presented in each sentence to further understand how the statements link. Sentence
1 introduces the main idea that forecasting is appealing because it works even without requiring specialized
expertise. Building on this idea, Sentence 5 highlights that non-experts can often outperform experts in
forecasting; this, in a way, relates to the appeal of forecasting introduced in the first sentence. Sentence 4
provides evidence to support the claim made in Sentence 5. It refers to a specific study where non-experts
outperformed experts in predicting geopolitical events, solidifying the argument that non-expert forecasting can
be more reliable. Sentence 3 strengthens the previous claim by highlighting that the experts, despite having
access to classified intelligence, were still outperformed by non-experts. In this manner, the arrangement 1-5-4-
3 renders a coherent paragraph.
Hence, Sentence 2 is the odd one out.

A useful strategy for determining where the given sentence best fits is to look for places where the flow of
ideas feels awkward or disconnected. When we examine the sentences around Blank 1, we see that they are
well-linked, moving smoothly from the broader issue of the drought to its immediate consequence, food
insecurity. The same logic applies to Blanks 2 and 3 - there are no noticeable disruptions in the flow of ideas
here. The structure remains clear and coherent even without inserting the given sentence into these blanks.

However, when we look at Blank 4, we notice a discrepancy. The sentence before Blank 4 mentions farmers and
pastoralists, and the sentence following it continues discussing pastoralists, but there’s a slight gap in the
connection. If the sentences were closely linked, the author could have used pronouns or rephrased the second
sentence to refer to pastoralists more naturally. Additionally, there’s a shift in focus: the paragraph moves from
talking about "leaving them on the brink of famine" to "never being able to go back as their livelihoods have
been irreversibly wiped out." This jump in ideas suggests the need for a transitional sentence to bridge the two
concepts - enter the given sentence. Moreover, the "Many... Some..." structure works well here. First, the author
mentions the larger group of farmers and pastoralists and how they were displaced. Then, the sentence
narrows the focus to a smaller portion of this group, highlighting how, even for those who were not displaced,
their livelihoods were so affected that they may never recover. This progression makes the insertion of the
given sentence at Blank 4 both logical and necessary for maintaining coherence.
Hence, Option A is the correct choice.

The passage clearly highlights the potential risks associated with AI's linguistic capabilities, urging action to
regulate its use. While the passage does present hypothetical scenarios and employs rhetorical questions, its
tone is primarily grounded in a warning, not sensationalism or mere speculation. This points us towards Option
A. The author systematically explains the dangers of unregulated AI tools, particularly their capacity to
manipulate language and influence human culture. The warnings are thoughtful and aim to provoke awareness
and a sense of urgency without excessive dramatisation. The tone is serious and measured, which aligns with a
cautionary style.
The remaining tones do not describe the discussion appropriately. For instance, consider Option B: though the
passage discusses AI's future implications, the focus is less on prediction and more on warning about what
could happen if action is not taken. "Prescient" implies a focus on foresight and vision, but the passage
emphasises immediate concerns and actionable advice. Similarly, the passage is not “alarmist” (Option C), as it
avoids overly exaggerated or emotional claims. It uses logical arguments and examples rather than
fearmongering. Option D is also a poor fit: although the passage concludes with a rhetorical question, this is a
stylistic device rather than a defining characteristic of the tone. The primary goal is to issue a warning, not to
leave the reader in a state of curiosity or wonder, making “quizzical” an incorrect characterisation.
Hence, Option A is the best choice.

Let us evaluate the choices based on the information in the passage -
Option A: The author does not dismiss fears about students using AI but instead deems such concerns
possibly trivial compared to AI’s larger societal threats.
Option B: The author doesn’t argue that fears of AI harming humans physically are unfounded, but shifts focus
to the linguistic and cultural dangers AI presents. It’s unclear whether he will explicitly support the view
presented here.
Option C: Though the author briefly acknowledges that AI can be used for good, this idea is not a central focus
of the passage; he also does not emphasise technological or industrial benefits. Therefore, it’s unclear whether
the author will support his view.
Option D: The concern stated here has been clearly underlined in the passage. We are informed of the threat AI
poses to democracy through its manipulation of language and ability to generate misinformation, fake intimacy,
and propaganda. The author explicitly states that democracy relies on meaningful human conversations, which
are undermined when AI becomes indistinguishable from humans. Therefore, this option aligns most closely
with the author's argument.
Hence, Option D is the correct choice.

The author emphasises that language is foundational to human culture and civilisation because it:
articulates and spreads human values and culture (as noted in Option C).
lays the groundwork for creating cultural artefacts through storytelling and laws (as noted in Option D).
influences political views and fosters emotional ties (as noted in Option A).
Option B, however, does not align with the rationale behind the “operating system” metaphor: the author does
not suggest that language is the "operating system" of civilisation because it underpins AI tools. Instead, the
passage treats AI tools like ChatGPT as leveraging language's existing role in civilization.

Let us evaluate the given choices -
Option A: The creation of new culture and ideas is a central theme of the passage, highlighted as a potential
outcome of AI's linguistic capabilities: [“...AI can create completely new ideas, completely new culture…”]
Option B: The author hints that AI could surpass human creativity in areas like storytelling, composing music,
and drafting laws or scriptures: [“...What would happen once a non-human intelligence becomes better than the
average human at telling stories, composing melodies, drawing images, and writing laws and scriptures?...”]
Option C: The threat to democracy through the mass production of fake news and political content is a major
concern raised by the author: [“...Think of the next American presidential race in 2024, and try to imagine the
impact of AI tools that can be made to mass-produce political content, fake-news stories…”]
Option D: The passage does discuss AI's ability to create emotional connections with individuals: [“...form
intimate relationships with people, and use the power of intimacy to change our opinions and worldviews…”]
However, it does not explicitly connect this capability to ‘exacerbating the polarization’ of political views. The
focus is on fostering fake intimacy to influence opinions, not specifically on worsening political polarization.
Hence, Option D is the correct choice.

The given sentence focuses on the impact of these rising costs on employees - an idea that hasn’t yet been
introduced here. Placing this in Blank 1 would prematurely shift the focus from a general economic observation
to the employee-specific consequences, disrupting the logical flow. Similarly, Blank 2 would be a poor choice
since it would interrupt the argument about wages not keeping pace with inflation. The broader context of
inflation and wages needs to be fully established before narrowing the discussion to employee struggles.
Blank 3 could be a good fit. We observe that the preceding sentence sets up the problem: wages are lagging
behind rising costs. The subsequent sentence emphasises the stark contrast between remote work savings
and current financial stress; the anecdote from the London University lecturer is further linked to this. Therefore,
Blank 4 is also unsuitable. By placing the given sentence in Blank 3, we bridge the two ideas presented above by
specifying how these rising costs and stagnant wages directly impact employees. It introduces the tangible
pressures employees face, which makes the subsequent sentence about savings during remote work even
more impactful.
Hence, Option B is the correct choice

Option D is the correct answer.
The passage mentions that 66% of coyote attacks involve a dog, which can either provoke a carnivore or
escalate a dangerous situation when the dog chases a carnivore or vice versa. In areas with large carnivores,
unleashing dogs can increase the likelihood of encounters and conflicts. Therefore, option D is the most likely
scenario to exacerbate carnivore-human conflicts.
Why the other options are less likely to exacerbate the conflicts:
Option A: Preventing wild animals from being attracted to human food sources would actually reduce carnivorehuman conflicts by keeping animals from becoming habituated to humans. This would prevent potential issues,

Option B: The passage suggests that climate change could increase the frequency of human-carnivore
encounters due to scarcity of resources. Therefore, addressing climate change would likely help prevent the
issue rather than exacerbate it.
Option C: According to the passage, photographing wild animals in secured viewing areas is not a major driver
of carnivore-human conflicts. Conflicts typically arise from behaviours that encourage animals to approach
humans or interact in risky ways, not from observation in protected zones. Therefore, this is unlikely to
exacerbate conflicts.

Option A: Climate change has had negligible effects on the frequency of carnivore-human interactions in
affected regions.
False version 1: Climate change has had no effect on the frequency of carnivore-human interactions in affected
regions. - Inconsistent with the passage
False version 2: Climate change has had a lot of effect on the frequency of carnivore-human interactions in
affected regions. - Consistent
As one of the versions contradicts the passage, we can say that the statement if false is inconsistent.
Option B:
Predatory attacks by carnivores are a common occurrence and have steadily increased over the past few
decades.
False Version: Predatory attacks by carnivores are a rare occurrence and have steadily increased over the past
few decades.
This is consistent with the passage.
Option C: Carnivores lose their instinctive fear of humans, when consistently exposed to human food sources.
False Version: Carnivores do not lose their instinctive fear of humans, when consistently exposed to human
food sources. -- irrelevant to the passage as the author speaks on reliance on human food and not exposure to
human food "sources".
Option D: Human efforts to avoid risky behaviours around large carnivores have proven effective in reducing
conflict incidents.
False version: Human efforts to avoid risky behaviours around large carnivores have not proven effective in
reducing conflict incidents. -- beyond the scope of the passage.

Option D is the correct answer. The passage mentions that landscape heterogeneity (a mix of farmland, forests,
and carnivore habitats ) in rural areas of low-income countries creates more opportunities for human-carnivore
encounters.
As Penteriani’s research shows, such landscapes increase the statistical probability of these conflicts because
the areas are interspersed with human and carnivore habitats. This aligns with option D.
Option A: This is inconsistent with the passage. The passage states, "The likelihood of human-carnivore
conflicts appears to be higher in areas of low-income countries dominated by vast rural landscapes and
farmland". Therefore, it is not less prone, rather more prone as per the passage.

Option B: The passage does not claim that landscape heterogeneity inherently decreases the chances of
human-carnivore conflict. Instead, it states that diversity increases the likelihood of encounters rather than
reducing it.
Option C: The passage does not state that homogeneous landscapes cause high rates of conflict due to
predictability. Instead, it suggests that landscape heterogeneity increases encounters.

Option D is the correct answer.
The passage states that: “As they become more reliant on human food they might find at campsites or in
rubbish bins, they become less avoidant of humans. Losing that instinctive fear response puts them into more
situations where they could get into an altercation with a human, which often results in that bear being put
down by humans."
This means that the factor contributing most to carnivores' habituation to human presence is the reduction in
instinctive fear response and reliance on human food sources, which is evident in option D.
Option A: The passage does not mention their natural aggression. It focuses more on losing fear due to food
reliance on human food.
Option B: The passage mentions climate change as a possible reason for increased conflict, but it doesn't
suggest it directly contributes to loss of fear or habituation.
Option C: The passage does not mention about the predatory perception of humans as potential prey, hence
eliminated.

Option B is the correct answer.
If white peppercorns were brought to Europe, Europeans would likely doubt the myth of harvesting pepper by
burning trees, as white peppercorns would not be burnt like the black peppercorns described in the story. This
inconsistency would make them question the accuracy of the myth.
Option A: Medieval maps were mentioned as symbolic and inaccurate, making them impractical for navigation.
Traders did not rely on these maps for precise geographical guidance.
Option C: This outcome is unlikely. The passage explains that spices were scarce and expensive; thus, bringing
white pepper would not significantly affect its price, since it remained a rare and highly valued commodity.
Option D: Even if a trader brought white peppercorns, pepper would still be viewed as exotic by Europeans due
to its rarity and the long journey it took to reach Europe. So, this outcome is also unlikely.

Option B is the correct answer.
While spices were a major part of European trade with the East, the passage does claim that gold was a
motivation for colonizing India. The main focus of the passage is on spices, not gold. Hence, the conclusion
that India was colonized for both spices and gold cannot be definitively drawn from the passage.
Option A: The passage hints that the desire for spices played a significant role in driving European colonial
expansion. Therefore, this conclusion can be reached from the passage.
Option C: The passage briefly mentions that spices never had the same enduring allure or commercial potential
as gold, silver, tobacco, indigo, or sugar. From this, we can infer that tobacco was more marketable than spices
at certain points in history.
Option D: In the passage, the desire for spices is described as one of the major factors that led to European
colonialism. Therefore, this conclusion could be reached.

Option A is the correct answer.
This is a wrong conclusion because it confuses the physical heat from the harvesting process with the pepper's
actual spiciness. The process of using fire for harvesting could not be related to the spiciness (being hot) of the
pepper.
Option B: The story of snakes and burning trees implies that pepper was difficult and dangerous to harvest,
which could explain why it was costly. This is a reasonable conclusion based on the story.
Option C: Given the danger described in the myth (snakes and burning trees), it's logical that people would
conclude it's not advisable to go to India to harvest pepper themselves. This could be a conclusion from the
story.
Option D: The story suggests that harvesting pepper is difficult and dangerous, which might lead people to think
that the supply is limited. Based on the information provided in the myth, this is a reasonable conclusion.

Option B is the correct answer.
The demand for spices was not necessarily tied to their availability. The passage states that medieval
Europeans had limited geographical knowledge of where spices came from and were highly prized despite their
relative scarcity. Spices were used for culinary and medicinal purposes, and the demand was driven by cultural
and medical factors rather than availability.
Option A: The passage states that spices were used partly due to the unavailability of refrigeration, and some
spices served as antibacterial agents. With the development of refrigeration techniques, the necessity for
spices to preserve or enhance food properties would diminish, leading to a decline in their appeal.
Option C: The passage mentions how spices were used for medicinal properties in medieval times as part of
humeral balancing. As medical science evolved, such practices would likely fall out of favour, reducing their
significance.
Option D: The passage states that spices played a significant role in medieval cooking, balancing humeral
properties in food. Changes in European tastes or culinary practices would have contributed to a decline in the
demand for spices

Let's evaluate the options:
Option A: The passage mentions this concern: "referees may be less critical of manuscripts if their reports are
published, especially if they are revealing their identities by signing them."
Option B: The passage does not mention that one of the reasons to oppose open peer review is to protect
reviewers from unwarranted and unjustified criticism. Instead, the passage discusses the concern that
reviewers may avoid giving critical feedback if their identities and reports are made public, not because they
want to avoid unjust criticism. The key concern is the fear of justified criticism rather than avoiding unjust or
unwarranted criticism.
Option C: The passage mentions that reviewers may be less critical in their reports if they fear their reviews will
be published. This might prevent reviewers from being honest and offering critical assessments, which are
crucial for the integrity of the publishing process.
Option D: Another concern raised in the passage is that reviewers might take longer to submit their reviews if
they know they will be publicly scrutinized. This delay in the review process is seen as a disadvantage of open
peer review.
Therefore, option B is the correct answer because the passage does not mention concerns about leaving
reviewers unexposed to unwarranted criticism.

Option D is the correct answer.
The passage discusses the value of making peer-reviewed data public to help address various issues in
academic publishing, such as bias, inefficiency, and fraud. The author advocates for a shift"from opacity in all
cases to opacity only when necessary," implying support for greater transparency in peer review.
Option A: The passage mentions concerns about reviewer selection, such as gender and geographic
imbalances, but it does not suggest that careful screening of content-familiar reviewers is a priority.
Option B: The passage mentioned about maintaining confidentiality, but it does not strongly argue in favour of
preserving anonymity.
Option C: The author does not fully endorse the publication of actual reviews or reviewer identities in every
situation. While the author advocates for sharing peer review data, they also acknowledge that, in some cases,
the content of reviews and reviewers' identities may need to remain confidential.

Option D is the correct answer.
This is not mentioned as a reason in the passage. The focus is on staying informed, contributing to the field,
and publicizing their own work, not on expanding influence. Therefore, option D is the correct answer as it is the
only reason not mentioned in the passage.

Option A: The passage mentions that some academics review work to "keep abreast with developments in their
field," which aligns with the idea that reviewing helps them stay updated with cutting-edge ideas. This is a valid
reason.
Option B: The passage also mentions that some scientists post their reviews online "mainly to claim credit for
their work," which indicates that some view reviewing as an opportunity to publicize their contributions. This is
a valid reason
Option C: The passage states that some view reviewing as "a duty to the discipline," which is a form of service
to the academic community. Therefore, option C is also a valid reason.

Option D is the correct answer.
The passage provides several arguments in favour of making peer review data public, but it does not mention
that making this data public would help in selecting appropriately qualified reviewers for academic writing.
Option A: The passage mentions that openly publishing peer review data could help journals address fraudulent
peer reviews, such as authors using fake email addresses to review their own manuscripts. Therefore, this is a
reason given in favour of making the data public.
Option B: The passage discusses a study showing that women and non-Westerners are underrepresented
among peer reviewers. Publishing peer review data could help highlight these gender and race biases, which is
one of the reasons for making the data public.
Option C: The passage suggests that sharing peer-review data could help journals tackle issues like fraud,
inefficiency, and systemic bias in the publishing process, which is another reason given in favour of making the
data public.

Sentence 4 is the odd one out.
Sentences 1, 2, 3, and 5 all focus on the current status and future prospects of cultivated meat in the UK, such
as the leadership in developing cultivated meat, regulatory assessments, and the importance of government
investment in research.
Sentence 4, however, refers to the previous UK government's efforts to fast-track approval of cultivated meat
which is disconnected from the other sentences, as the focus shifts to a past action rather than the current
developments or future needs in the industry.

Option A is the correct answer.
Option A captures the core idea that their collaborations have led to valuable scientific discoveries despite
differences in research methods between physicists and other scientists. The passage emphasizes how these
contrasting approaches still lead to productive outcomes, demonstrating the benefits of cross-disciplinary
work.
Option B: While large data sets and mathematical models are mentioned, this option incorrectly focuses on
"large data sets and mathematical models" as the main contributor, which is not the main point of the passage.
Option C: This is partially true, but the passage does not emphasize the "desire to diversify" research or focus
on social scientists. It is about the collaboration of different scientific fields, not specifically social science.
Option D: This is inaccurate because the passage does not state that physicists have "buried" their differences;
rather, it says that their differences exist, but the collaboration is still valuable. This is an extreme interpretation.

Option A is the correct answer.
The author does not imply that recent advances are more threatening than past ones. Instead, he suggests that
the nature of technological progress (with more individuals and smaller groups able to innovate) has changed,
leading to new risks. The focus is not on comparing "past vs. recent" as more threatening but on the
unexpected global impacts of all technological advances. Thus, option A misrepresents the author's view.
Option B: The author would agree with this because the passage explains that Ethyl (leaded fuel) and Freon are
examples of innovations whose unintended consequences stem from by-products they emitted (such as lead
from fuel and chemicals from Freon), which had secondary effects on health and the environment.
Option C: The author would support this as he mentions how individuals or small groups can now create
innovations that have global impacts, particularly in fields like biotechnology and chemistry, which was less true
in the past.
Option D: The author suggests that the health threats of leaded fuel were visible earlier (in the 1920s), implying
that they should have been addressed sooner. Hence, the author would support this

Option B is the correct answer.
The author mentions Carrier, Babbage, and Edison to emphasize that the inventors' original intentions were not
related to the unexpected societal impacts their inventions had:
Carrier created air-conditioning for industrial use, but it triggered a mass migration to cities like Phoenix
and Las Vegas.
Babbage's invention of a programmable loom and Edison’s phonograph were originally intended for
specific purposes (textile weaving and dictation, respectively). Still, they led to far-reaching technological
developments in computing and music industries.
Therefore, we can infer that the inventors did not anticipate the full consequences of their inventions.
Option A: The secondary effects are shown as surprising or leading to unforeseen societal changes, rather than
leading to more inventions.
Option C: The passage doesn't claim that the unintended consequences were largely beneficial. While some
consequences may have been beneficial (like the telescope and microscope from the printing press), others
(like climate change ) have been harmful.
Option D: This is close, but it's not the main point. The intended purpose of the inventions may have been
different from their actual use, but the author’s primary argument is about how the inventors could not have
predicted the full societal impacts of their inventions, rather than focusing on how inventions end up being used
for different purposes.

Option B is the correct answer.
The first paragraph discusses how technological or industrial advances are often accompanied by unintended
consequences or secondary effects, which may not be fully understood or predictable at the time of the
invention. It gives the example of the printing press, which led to unexpected developments such as the
creation of spectacles, and later, the telescope and microscope. This is well captured in Option B.
Option A: While some secondary effects may be beneficial, the focus of the paragraph is more on the
unpredictability and far-reaching nature of these effects, rather than their inherent benefit.

Option C: The paragraph doesn't advocate judging inventions by their secondary effects. Instead, it
mentions that these effects are unpredictable and sometimes surprising. The main point is their
unpredictability, not how to judge an invention.
Option D: The paragraph does not suggest that the impact of a technological advance should be evaluated by
the boost its secondary effects give to generating further technological advances.

Option B is the correct answer.
This is not an externality because it was the original intended use of air-conditioning. The passage mentions
that Carrier invented air-conditioning to ensure cool, dry air for factories with low-humidity requirements.
The other options are externalities:
Option A: This is an unintended consequence. CFCs were initially used in refrigeration and air-conditioning, but
their long-term environmental impact (ozone depletion) was not anticipated.
Option C: The Jacquard loom was originally a mechanical device for weaving patterns in fabric, but it led to the
development of programmable machines, which had far-reaching effects on modern computing, which was
also an unintended consequence of the loom's invention.
Option D: The passage states that the phonograph was initially designed for dictation but was adapted for
music recording, which was an unintended consequence.