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 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 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 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

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 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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Option C is the correct answer.
The passage highlights that the practice of streaming services, like Netflix, editing old episodes of Stranger
Things retroactively raised concerns. Altering a popular show’s content without consent or transparency
supports the concern that such platforms can tamper with or erase parts of culture at their discretion rather
than preserve them as they were originally created.
Option A: This option doesn't fully address the specific concern raised by the Stranger Things editing example.
The example focuses on altering the content, not controlling access.
Option B: The example concerns the possibility and practice of editing content on streaming platforms, not
whether unsubstantiated reports cause distrust.
Option D: The example of Stranger Things is not necessarily about changing films to suit new tastes or
technology. Rather, it’s about the platform’s ability to alter existing content without transparency or input from
the original creators.

Option B is the correct answer.
The passage contrasts the past and present by mentioning that, in the past, films were considered “as good as
gone” once they left the cinema, meaning they were ephemeral and not readily accessible afterwards. Whereas,
today's audience expects ongoing access to films well beyond their initial cinema run, thanks to technological
advancements like streaming services and digital media. This shift in expectations is what the passage implies
when referencing the previous era's ephemerality versus today's more lasting availability.
Option A: This is not the main point. While it may be true that people accepted films as temporary, the passage
emphasizes today's expectations rather than discussing past acceptance.
Option C: The passage does not mention technology improvements. It focuses more on audience expectations
or belief that films should now be available beyond just the cinema.
Option D: While the passage suggests that audiences may expect films to remain accessible, it does not claim
there is no reason for studios to remove access. The passage acknowledges that financial motives may lead to
films being removed from platforms.

Option B is the correct answer.
Option B would invalidate the main argument because it directly addresses the issue raised in the passage, i.e.,
the lack of permanent access to digital content. The passage highlights concerns about the temporary and
restricted nature of digital ownership. If studios and streaming services committed to providing perpetual and
platform-independent access, it would resolve the problem of content being removed or restricted, making the
author's argument about the instability of digital media irrelevant.
Option A: This would not invalidate the argument because the passage mentions that Blu-ray discs have a
theoretical shelf life but acknowledges that their durability depends on storage conditions and the availability of
playback equipment.
Option C: This option doesn't directly invalidate the argument either. While VPNs might help users bypass georestrictions, it doesn't address the broader issue of digital ownership and the fragility of digital rights, especially
the fear of losing access to content due to different rights agreements. The passage focuses on the
unreliability and restrictions of digital ownership, not just geographical access.
Option D: While this option touches on the potential for preserving digital content, it doesn't directly address the
problem raised in the passage: the lack of permanent, independent access to content.

Option B is the correct answer.
The passage argues that, despite the advances in digital distribution and storage of films (via streaming
services or digital purchases), access to art is becoming more fragile. It mentions how content can disappear
from platforms, how digital files deteriorate over time, and how rights agreements can limit access based on
geographical location. The idea that technology and platform control lead to difficulties in maintaining access
captured in Option B
Option A: The passage does not advocate changing the understanding of art as immutable or easily available.
Hence, this is wrong.
Option C: This is an overstatement of the passage’s argument. While the passage briefly touches on the idea of
retroactive changes to works like Stranger Things, it does not present these changes as inherently "dangerous."
Option D: The passage does not argue for the availability of art in the cultural commons in perpetuity. Instead, it
highlights how access is controlled by platforms and technological challenges rather than making a broader
ideological statement about cultural commons.

Option D is the correct answer.
Option D captures the main idea of the passage. It reflects the near-extinction of the western barred bandicoot
due to invasive species and highlights the conservation efforts using survivors from Shark Bay islands.
Option A: This is not entirely true. The western barred bandicoot did not go extinct; instead, it survived in small
numbers on two predator-free islands. This option incorrectly asserts total extinction and ignores the ongoing
efforts to revive the species.
Option B: This is a distortion. While the colonists' negligence and the nicknames they gave reflect their
disregard, the passage clearly attributes the near-extinction of bandicoots to ecological disruptions caused by
invasive species, not merely the colonists' attitudes.
Option C: This generalizes the issue and does not focus specifically on the western barred bandicoot, the
subject of the passage. Furthermore, it does not highlight the rescue efforts which are central to the passage.

Option D is the correct answer.
The 'exclosures' are mentioned as fenced areas cleared of invasive rabbits and feral cats. The term "exclosures"
points to the intentional exclusion of these invasive species to create a safe environment for the bandicoots
and other native animals.
Option A: While the bandicoots help in restoring the cattle damaged landscape, the term 'exclosure' does not
relate to it.
Option B: The exclosures are cleared of feral cats, but the passage does not mention removing large bilbies,
which are actually part of the controlled environment. The exclosures themselves are specifically to protect the
bandicoots from cats and rabbits, not bilbies.
Option C: The exclosures are not about making an area entirely predator-free for all species. Instead, the

purpose is to create controlled environments where invasive species like rabbits and feral cats are removed.
Predators are still present in the Wild Training Zone, where bandicoots and other marsupials learn to coexist
and evade predators.

Option B is the correct answer.
The passage does not mention the bandicoots' use of camouflage as a survival technique. While their shelters
may be camouflaged (hidden), the bandicoots themselves are not described as using camouflage directly.
Option A: This is correct. The passage mentions their long, slender snouts and their digging behaviour, which
allows them to create shallow shelters in the desert.
Option C: This is correct. The nickname "zebra rat" comes from their appearance, and their slender snout and
backward-facing pouch for carrying joeys are described in the passage.
Option D: This is also correct. The passage mentions these features as characteristics of the western barred
bandicoot.

Option A is the correct answer.
The passage mentions how bandicoots contribute to the ecosystem by digging, which traps moisture and aids
in seed germination. This activity helps restore the desert ecosystem damaged by cattle. Their role as
"ecosystem engineers" stems from these positive environmental impacts.
Option B: Although efforts to preserve the bandicoot species are ongoing, the passage does not link their new
nickname to these efforts. The name "ecosystem engineers" specifically reflects their environmental
contributions rather than conservation measures.
Option C: While the passage mentions a population increase due to rainfall, the new nickname is unrelated to
this growth. Instead, it is tied to their environmental engineering role.
Option D: This is a wrong interpretation because there is no mention in the passage of the bandicoots affecting
rainfall.