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 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 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 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 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

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.