option
list | question
stringlengths 11
354
| article
stringlengths 231
6.74k
| id
stringlengths 5
8
| label
int64 0
3
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
[
"contrast today's Beringian landscape with other landscapes in the American continent",
"describe the Beringian landscape during the last ice age",
"explain why so many Beringian species became extinct during the last ice age",
"summarize the information about Beringia that historians agree on"
] | The purpose of paragraph 3 is to | During the peak of the last ice age, northeast Asia (SiberiA. and Alaska were connected by a broad land mass called the Bering Land Bridge. This land bridge existed because so much of Earth's water was frozen in the great ice sheets that sea levels were over 100 meters lower than they are today. Between 25,000 and 10,000 years ago, Siberia, the Bering Land Bndge, and Alaska shared many environmental characteristics. These included a common mammalian fauna of large mammals, a common flora composed of broad grasslands as well as wind-swept dunes and tundra, and a common climate with cold, dry winters and somewhat warmer summers. The recognition that many aspects of the modem flora and fauna were present on both sides of the Bering Sea as remnants of the ice-age landscape led to this region being named Beringia.
It is through Beringia that small groups of large mammal hunters, slowly expanding their hunting territories, eventually colonized North and South America. On this archaeologists generally agree, but that is where the agreement stops. One broad area of disagreement in explaining the peopling of the Americas is the domain of paleoecologists, but it is critical to understanding human history: what was Beringia like?
The Beringian landscape was very different from what it is today. Broad, windswept valleys; glaciated mountains; sparse vegetation; and less moisture created a rather forbidding land mass. This land mass supported herds of now-extinct species of mammoth, bison, and horse and somewhat modern versions of caribou, musk ox, elk, and saiga antelope. These grazers supported in turn a number of impressive carnivores, including the giant short-faced bear, the saber-tooth cat, and a large species of lion.
The presence of mammal species that require grassland vegetation has led Arctic biologist Dale Guthrie to argue that while cold and dry, there must have been broad areas of dense vegetation to support herds of mammoth, horse, and bison. Further, nearly all of the ice-age fauna had teeth that indicate an adaptation to grasses and sedges; they could not have been supported by a modern flora of mosses and lichens. Guthrie has also demonstrated that the landscape must have been subject to intense and continuous winds, especially in winter. He makes this argument based on the anatomy of horse and bison, which do not have the ability to search for food through deep snow cover. They need landscapes with strong winds that remove the winter snows, exposing the dry grasses beneath. Guthrie applied the term " mammoth steppe" to characterize this landscape.
In contrast, Paul Colinvaux has offered a counterargument based on the analysis of pollen in lake sediments dating to the last ice age. He found that the amount of pollen recovered in these sediments is so low that the Beringian landscape during the peak of the last glaciation was more likely to have been what he termed a "polar desert," with little or only sparse vegetation, in no way was it possible that this region could have supported large herds of mammals and thus, human hunters. Guthrie has argued against this view by pointing out that radiocarbon analysis of mammoth, horse, and bison bones from Beringian deposits revealed that the bones date to the period of most intense glaciation.
The argument seemed to be at a standstill until a number of recent studies resulted in a spectacular suite of new finds. The first was the discovery of a 1,000-square-kilometer preserved patch of Beringian vegetation dating to just over 17,000 years ago-the peak of the last ice age The plants were preserved under a thick ash fall from a volcanic eruption. Investigations of the plants found grasses, sedges, mosses, and many other varieties in a nearly continuous cover, as was predicted by Guthrie. But this vegetation had a thin root mat with no soil formation, demonstrating that there was little long-term stability in plant cover, a finding supporting some of the arguments of Colinvaux. A mixture of continuous but thin vegetation supporting herds of large mammals is one that seems plausible and realistic with the available data. | 2464.txt | 1 |
[
"unpredictable",
"very cold",
"dangerous",
"uninterrupted"
] | The word "continuous" in the passage is closest in meaning to | During the peak of the last ice age, northeast Asia (SiberiA. and Alaska were connected by a broad land mass called the Bering Land Bridge. This land bridge existed because so much of Earth's water was frozen in the great ice sheets that sea levels were over 100 meters lower than they are today. Between 25,000 and 10,000 years ago, Siberia, the Bering Land Bndge, and Alaska shared many environmental characteristics. These included a common mammalian fauna of large mammals, a common flora composed of broad grasslands as well as wind-swept dunes and tundra, and a common climate with cold, dry winters and somewhat warmer summers. The recognition that many aspects of the modem flora and fauna were present on both sides of the Bering Sea as remnants of the ice-age landscape led to this region being named Beringia.
It is through Beringia that small groups of large mammal hunters, slowly expanding their hunting territories, eventually colonized North and South America. On this archaeologists generally agree, but that is where the agreement stops. One broad area of disagreement in explaining the peopling of the Americas is the domain of paleoecologists, but it is critical to understanding human history: what was Beringia like?
The Beringian landscape was very different from what it is today. Broad, windswept valleys; glaciated mountains; sparse vegetation; and less moisture created a rather forbidding land mass. This land mass supported herds of now-extinct species of mammoth, bison, and horse and somewhat modern versions of caribou, musk ox, elk, and saiga antelope. These grazers supported in turn a number of impressive carnivores, including the giant short-faced bear, the saber-tooth cat, and a large species of lion.
The presence of mammal species that require grassland vegetation has led Arctic biologist Dale Guthrie to argue that while cold and dry, there must have been broad areas of dense vegetation to support herds of mammoth, horse, and bison. Further, nearly all of the ice-age fauna had teeth that indicate an adaptation to grasses and sedges; they could not have been supported by a modern flora of mosses and lichens. Guthrie has also demonstrated that the landscape must have been subject to intense and continuous winds, especially in winter. He makes this argument based on the anatomy of horse and bison, which do not have the ability to search for food through deep snow cover. They need landscapes with strong winds that remove the winter snows, exposing the dry grasses beneath. Guthrie applied the term " mammoth steppe" to characterize this landscape.
In contrast, Paul Colinvaux has offered a counterargument based on the analysis of pollen in lake sediments dating to the last ice age. He found that the amount of pollen recovered in these sediments is so low that the Beringian landscape during the peak of the last glaciation was more likely to have been what he termed a "polar desert," with little or only sparse vegetation, in no way was it possible that this region could have supported large herds of mammals and thus, human hunters. Guthrie has argued against this view by pointing out that radiocarbon analysis of mammoth, horse, and bison bones from Beringian deposits revealed that the bones date to the period of most intense glaciation.
The argument seemed to be at a standstill until a number of recent studies resulted in a spectacular suite of new finds. The first was the discovery of a 1,000-square-kilometer preserved patch of Beringian vegetation dating to just over 17,000 years ago-the peak of the last ice age The plants were preserved under a thick ash fall from a volcanic eruption. Investigations of the plants found grasses, sedges, mosses, and many other varieties in a nearly continuous cover, as was predicted by Guthrie. But this vegetation had a thin root mat with no soil formation, demonstrating that there was little long-term stability in plant cover, a finding supporting some of the arguments of Colinvaux. A mixture of continuous but thin vegetation supporting herds of large mammals is one that seems plausible and realistic with the available data. | 2464.txt | 3 |
[
"Large mammals would not have been able to survive in the Beringian landscape.",
"Grasslands were part of the Beringian landscape.",
"Strong winds exposed dry grasses under the snow.",
"Horses and bison did not have the ability to search for food through deep snow cover.."
] | According to paragraph 4, Guthrie believes that the teeth of ice-age fauna support which of the following conclusions? | During the peak of the last ice age, northeast Asia (SiberiA. and Alaska were connected by a broad land mass called the Bering Land Bridge. This land bridge existed because so much of Earth's water was frozen in the great ice sheets that sea levels were over 100 meters lower than they are today. Between 25,000 and 10,000 years ago, Siberia, the Bering Land Bndge, and Alaska shared many environmental characteristics. These included a common mammalian fauna of large mammals, a common flora composed of broad grasslands as well as wind-swept dunes and tundra, and a common climate with cold, dry winters and somewhat warmer summers. The recognition that many aspects of the modem flora and fauna were present on both sides of the Bering Sea as remnants of the ice-age landscape led to this region being named Beringia.
It is through Beringia that small groups of large mammal hunters, slowly expanding their hunting territories, eventually colonized North and South America. On this archaeologists generally agree, but that is where the agreement stops. One broad area of disagreement in explaining the peopling of the Americas is the domain of paleoecologists, but it is critical to understanding human history: what was Beringia like?
The Beringian landscape was very different from what it is today. Broad, windswept valleys; glaciated mountains; sparse vegetation; and less moisture created a rather forbidding land mass. This land mass supported herds of now-extinct species of mammoth, bison, and horse and somewhat modern versions of caribou, musk ox, elk, and saiga antelope. These grazers supported in turn a number of impressive carnivores, including the giant short-faced bear, the saber-tooth cat, and a large species of lion.
The presence of mammal species that require grassland vegetation has led Arctic biologist Dale Guthrie to argue that while cold and dry, there must have been broad areas of dense vegetation to support herds of mammoth, horse, and bison. Further, nearly all of the ice-age fauna had teeth that indicate an adaptation to grasses and sedges; they could not have been supported by a modern flora of mosses and lichens. Guthrie has also demonstrated that the landscape must have been subject to intense and continuous winds, especially in winter. He makes this argument based on the anatomy of horse and bison, which do not have the ability to search for food through deep snow cover. They need landscapes with strong winds that remove the winter snows, exposing the dry grasses beneath. Guthrie applied the term " mammoth steppe" to characterize this landscape.
In contrast, Paul Colinvaux has offered a counterargument based on the analysis of pollen in lake sediments dating to the last ice age. He found that the amount of pollen recovered in these sediments is so low that the Beringian landscape during the peak of the last glaciation was more likely to have been what he termed a "polar desert," with little or only sparse vegetation, in no way was it possible that this region could have supported large herds of mammals and thus, human hunters. Guthrie has argued against this view by pointing out that radiocarbon analysis of mammoth, horse, and bison bones from Beringian deposits revealed that the bones date to the period of most intense glaciation.
The argument seemed to be at a standstill until a number of recent studies resulted in a spectacular suite of new finds. The first was the discovery of a 1,000-square-kilometer preserved patch of Beringian vegetation dating to just over 17,000 years ago-the peak of the last ice age The plants were preserved under a thick ash fall from a volcanic eruption. Investigations of the plants found grasses, sedges, mosses, and many other varieties in a nearly continuous cover, as was predicted by Guthrie. But this vegetation had a thin root mat with no soil formation, demonstrating that there was little long-term stability in plant cover, a finding supporting some of the arguments of Colinvaux. A mixture of continuous but thin vegetation supporting herds of large mammals is one that seems plausible and realistic with the available data. | 2464.txt | 1 |
[
"When present in sufficient quantities, lichens and mosses provide enough nutrients to satisfy the needs of herds of large mammals.",
"The anatomy of certain animals present in that environment provides information about the intensity of winds there at that time.",
"The structure of the teeth of most ice-age fauna indicates that they preyed on animals such as the mammoth, horse, and bison.",
"Horses and bison are large enough that their feet can easily penetrate deep snow and uncover areas where they can feed on plant material."
] | According to paragraph 4, which of the following statements is true of the relationship between ice- age Benngian animals and their environment? | During the peak of the last ice age, northeast Asia (SiberiA. and Alaska were connected by a broad land mass called the Bering Land Bridge. This land bridge existed because so much of Earth's water was frozen in the great ice sheets that sea levels were over 100 meters lower than they are today. Between 25,000 and 10,000 years ago, Siberia, the Bering Land Bndge, and Alaska shared many environmental characteristics. These included a common mammalian fauna of large mammals, a common flora composed of broad grasslands as well as wind-swept dunes and tundra, and a common climate with cold, dry winters and somewhat warmer summers. The recognition that many aspects of the modem flora and fauna were present on both sides of the Bering Sea as remnants of the ice-age landscape led to this region being named Beringia.
It is through Beringia that small groups of large mammal hunters, slowly expanding their hunting territories, eventually colonized North and South America. On this archaeologists generally agree, but that is where the agreement stops. One broad area of disagreement in explaining the peopling of the Americas is the domain of paleoecologists, but it is critical to understanding human history: what was Beringia like?
The Beringian landscape was very different from what it is today. Broad, windswept valleys; glaciated mountains; sparse vegetation; and less moisture created a rather forbidding land mass. This land mass supported herds of now-extinct species of mammoth, bison, and horse and somewhat modern versions of caribou, musk ox, elk, and saiga antelope. These grazers supported in turn a number of impressive carnivores, including the giant short-faced bear, the saber-tooth cat, and a large species of lion.
The presence of mammal species that require grassland vegetation has led Arctic biologist Dale Guthrie to argue that while cold and dry, there must have been broad areas of dense vegetation to support herds of mammoth, horse, and bison. Further, nearly all of the ice-age fauna had teeth that indicate an adaptation to grasses and sedges; they could not have been supported by a modern flora of mosses and lichens. Guthrie has also demonstrated that the landscape must have been subject to intense and continuous winds, especially in winter. He makes this argument based on the anatomy of horse and bison, which do not have the ability to search for food through deep snow cover. They need landscapes with strong winds that remove the winter snows, exposing the dry grasses beneath. Guthrie applied the term " mammoth steppe" to characterize this landscape.
In contrast, Paul Colinvaux has offered a counterargument based on the analysis of pollen in lake sediments dating to the last ice age. He found that the amount of pollen recovered in these sediments is so low that the Beringian landscape during the peak of the last glaciation was more likely to have been what he termed a "polar desert," with little or only sparse vegetation, in no way was it possible that this region could have supported large herds of mammals and thus, human hunters. Guthrie has argued against this view by pointing out that radiocarbon analysis of mammoth, horse, and bison bones from Beringian deposits revealed that the bones date to the period of most intense glaciation.
The argument seemed to be at a standstill until a number of recent studies resulted in a spectacular suite of new finds. The first was the discovery of a 1,000-square-kilometer preserved patch of Beringian vegetation dating to just over 17,000 years ago-the peak of the last ice age The plants were preserved under a thick ash fall from a volcanic eruption. Investigations of the plants found grasses, sedges, mosses, and many other varieties in a nearly continuous cover, as was predicted by Guthrie. But this vegetation had a thin root mat with no soil formation, demonstrating that there was little long-term stability in plant cover, a finding supporting some of the arguments of Colinvaux. A mixture of continuous but thin vegetation supporting herds of large mammals is one that seems plausible and realistic with the available data. | 2464.txt | 1 |
[
"how long the ice age lasted",
"how important pollen is as a source of food",
"how many different kinds of plants produce pollen",
"how little vegetation must have been present at that time"
] | In paragraph 5, the amount of pollen in Beringian lake sediments from the last ice age is used to explain | During the peak of the last ice age, northeast Asia (SiberiA. and Alaska were connected by a broad land mass called the Bering Land Bridge. This land bridge existed because so much of Earth's water was frozen in the great ice sheets that sea levels were over 100 meters lower than they are today. Between 25,000 and 10,000 years ago, Siberia, the Bering Land Bndge, and Alaska shared many environmental characteristics. These included a common mammalian fauna of large mammals, a common flora composed of broad grasslands as well as wind-swept dunes and tundra, and a common climate with cold, dry winters and somewhat warmer summers. The recognition that many aspects of the modem flora and fauna were present on both sides of the Bering Sea as remnants of the ice-age landscape led to this region being named Beringia.
It is through Beringia that small groups of large mammal hunters, slowly expanding their hunting territories, eventually colonized North and South America. On this archaeologists generally agree, but that is where the agreement stops. One broad area of disagreement in explaining the peopling of the Americas is the domain of paleoecologists, but it is critical to understanding human history: what was Beringia like?
The Beringian landscape was very different from what it is today. Broad, windswept valleys; glaciated mountains; sparse vegetation; and less moisture created a rather forbidding land mass. This land mass supported herds of now-extinct species of mammoth, bison, and horse and somewhat modern versions of caribou, musk ox, elk, and saiga antelope. These grazers supported in turn a number of impressive carnivores, including the giant short-faced bear, the saber-tooth cat, and a large species of lion.
The presence of mammal species that require grassland vegetation has led Arctic biologist Dale Guthrie to argue that while cold and dry, there must have been broad areas of dense vegetation to support herds of mammoth, horse, and bison. Further, nearly all of the ice-age fauna had teeth that indicate an adaptation to grasses and sedges; they could not have been supported by a modern flora of mosses and lichens. Guthrie has also demonstrated that the landscape must have been subject to intense and continuous winds, especially in winter. He makes this argument based on the anatomy of horse and bison, which do not have the ability to search for food through deep snow cover. They need landscapes with strong winds that remove the winter snows, exposing the dry grasses beneath. Guthrie applied the term " mammoth steppe" to characterize this landscape.
In contrast, Paul Colinvaux has offered a counterargument based on the analysis of pollen in lake sediments dating to the last ice age. He found that the amount of pollen recovered in these sediments is so low that the Beringian landscape during the peak of the last glaciation was more likely to have been what he termed a "polar desert," with little or only sparse vegetation, in no way was it possible that this region could have supported large herds of mammals and thus, human hunters. Guthrie has argued against this view by pointing out that radiocarbon analysis of mammoth, horse, and bison bones from Beringian deposits revealed that the bones date to the period of most intense glaciation.
The argument seemed to be at a standstill until a number of recent studies resulted in a spectacular suite of new finds. The first was the discovery of a 1,000-square-kilometer preserved patch of Beringian vegetation dating to just over 17,000 years ago-the peak of the last ice age The plants were preserved under a thick ash fall from a volcanic eruption. Investigations of the plants found grasses, sedges, mosses, and many other varieties in a nearly continuous cover, as was predicted by Guthrie. But this vegetation had a thin root mat with no soil formation, demonstrating that there was little long-term stability in plant cover, a finding supporting some of the arguments of Colinvaux. A mixture of continuous but thin vegetation supporting herds of large mammals is one that seems plausible and realistic with the available data. | 2464.txt | 3 |
[
"To suggest that Colinvaux should have used different methods to measure the amount of pollen in ice-age lake sediments",
"To argue that the large Beringian mammals must have eaten plants that produce little, if any, pollen",
"To show that the conclusions that Colinvaux drew from the analysis of pollen in ice-age lake sediments cannot be correct",
"To explain why so-called polar deserts are incapable of supporting such large animals as mammoth, horse, and bison"
] | According to paragraph 5, how did Dale Guthrie use the information about radiocarbon analysis of bones from Benngian deposits? | During the peak of the last ice age, northeast Asia (SiberiA. and Alaska were connected by a broad land mass called the Bering Land Bridge. This land bridge existed because so much of Earth's water was frozen in the great ice sheets that sea levels were over 100 meters lower than they are today. Between 25,000 and 10,000 years ago, Siberia, the Bering Land Bndge, and Alaska shared many environmental characteristics. These included a common mammalian fauna of large mammals, a common flora composed of broad grasslands as well as wind-swept dunes and tundra, and a common climate with cold, dry winters and somewhat warmer summers. The recognition that many aspects of the modem flora and fauna were present on both sides of the Bering Sea as remnants of the ice-age landscape led to this region being named Beringia.
It is through Beringia that small groups of large mammal hunters, slowly expanding their hunting territories, eventually colonized North and South America. On this archaeologists generally agree, but that is where the agreement stops. One broad area of disagreement in explaining the peopling of the Americas is the domain of paleoecologists, but it is critical to understanding human history: what was Beringia like?
The Beringian landscape was very different from what it is today. Broad, windswept valleys; glaciated mountains; sparse vegetation; and less moisture created a rather forbidding land mass. This land mass supported herds of now-extinct species of mammoth, bison, and horse and somewhat modern versions of caribou, musk ox, elk, and saiga antelope. These grazers supported in turn a number of impressive carnivores, including the giant short-faced bear, the saber-tooth cat, and a large species of lion.
The presence of mammal species that require grassland vegetation has led Arctic biologist Dale Guthrie to argue that while cold and dry, there must have been broad areas of dense vegetation to support herds of mammoth, horse, and bison. Further, nearly all of the ice-age fauna had teeth that indicate an adaptation to grasses and sedges; they could not have been supported by a modern flora of mosses and lichens. Guthrie has also demonstrated that the landscape must have been subject to intense and continuous winds, especially in winter. He makes this argument based on the anatomy of horse and bison, which do not have the ability to search for food through deep snow cover. They need landscapes with strong winds that remove the winter snows, exposing the dry grasses beneath. Guthrie applied the term " mammoth steppe" to characterize this landscape.
In contrast, Paul Colinvaux has offered a counterargument based on the analysis of pollen in lake sediments dating to the last ice age. He found that the amount of pollen recovered in these sediments is so low that the Beringian landscape during the peak of the last glaciation was more likely to have been what he termed a "polar desert," with little or only sparse vegetation, in no way was it possible that this region could have supported large herds of mammals and thus, human hunters. Guthrie has argued against this view by pointing out that radiocarbon analysis of mammoth, horse, and bison bones from Beringian deposits revealed that the bones date to the period of most intense glaciation.
The argument seemed to be at a standstill until a number of recent studies resulted in a spectacular suite of new finds. The first was the discovery of a 1,000-square-kilometer preserved patch of Beringian vegetation dating to just over 17,000 years ago-the peak of the last ice age The plants were preserved under a thick ash fall from a volcanic eruption. Investigations of the plants found grasses, sedges, mosses, and many other varieties in a nearly continuous cover, as was predicted by Guthrie. But this vegetation had a thin root mat with no soil formation, demonstrating that there was little long-term stability in plant cover, a finding supporting some of the arguments of Colinvaux. A mixture of continuous but thin vegetation supporting herds of large mammals is one that seems plausible and realistic with the available data. | 2464.txt | 2 |
[
"preferable",
"practical",
"reasonable",
"advantageous"
] | The word "plausible" in the passage is closest in meaning to | During the peak of the last ice age, northeast Asia (SiberiA. and Alaska were connected by a broad land mass called the Bering Land Bridge. This land bridge existed because so much of Earth's water was frozen in the great ice sheets that sea levels were over 100 meters lower than they are today. Between 25,000 and 10,000 years ago, Siberia, the Bering Land Bndge, and Alaska shared many environmental characteristics. These included a common mammalian fauna of large mammals, a common flora composed of broad grasslands as well as wind-swept dunes and tundra, and a common climate with cold, dry winters and somewhat warmer summers. The recognition that many aspects of the modem flora and fauna were present on both sides of the Bering Sea as remnants of the ice-age landscape led to this region being named Beringia.
It is through Beringia that small groups of large mammal hunters, slowly expanding their hunting territories, eventually colonized North and South America. On this archaeologists generally agree, but that is where the agreement stops. One broad area of disagreement in explaining the peopling of the Americas is the domain of paleoecologists, but it is critical to understanding human history: what was Beringia like?
The Beringian landscape was very different from what it is today. Broad, windswept valleys; glaciated mountains; sparse vegetation; and less moisture created a rather forbidding land mass. This land mass supported herds of now-extinct species of mammoth, bison, and horse and somewhat modern versions of caribou, musk ox, elk, and saiga antelope. These grazers supported in turn a number of impressive carnivores, including the giant short-faced bear, the saber-tooth cat, and a large species of lion.
The presence of mammal species that require grassland vegetation has led Arctic biologist Dale Guthrie to argue that while cold and dry, there must have been broad areas of dense vegetation to support herds of mammoth, horse, and bison. Further, nearly all of the ice-age fauna had teeth that indicate an adaptation to grasses and sedges; they could not have been supported by a modern flora of mosses and lichens. Guthrie has also demonstrated that the landscape must have been subject to intense and continuous winds, especially in winter. He makes this argument based on the anatomy of horse and bison, which do not have the ability to search for food through deep snow cover. They need landscapes with strong winds that remove the winter snows, exposing the dry grasses beneath. Guthrie applied the term " mammoth steppe" to characterize this landscape.
In contrast, Paul Colinvaux has offered a counterargument based on the analysis of pollen in lake sediments dating to the last ice age. He found that the amount of pollen recovered in these sediments is so low that the Beringian landscape during the peak of the last glaciation was more likely to have been what he termed a "polar desert," with little or only sparse vegetation, in no way was it possible that this region could have supported large herds of mammals and thus, human hunters. Guthrie has argued against this view by pointing out that radiocarbon analysis of mammoth, horse, and bison bones from Beringian deposits revealed that the bones date to the period of most intense glaciation.
The argument seemed to be at a standstill until a number of recent studies resulted in a spectacular suite of new finds. The first was the discovery of a 1,000-square-kilometer preserved patch of Beringian vegetation dating to just over 17,000 years ago-the peak of the last ice age The plants were preserved under a thick ash fall from a volcanic eruption. Investigations of the plants found grasses, sedges, mosses, and many other varieties in a nearly continuous cover, as was predicted by Guthrie. But this vegetation had a thin root mat with no soil formation, demonstrating that there was little long-term stability in plant cover, a finding supporting some of the arguments of Colinvaux. A mixture of continuous but thin vegetation supporting herds of large mammals is one that seems plausible and realistic with the available data. | 2464.txt | 2 |
[
"Two contrasting views are presented, and a study that could decide between them is proposed",
"An argument is offered, and reasons both for and against the argument are presented",
"A claim is made, and a study supporting the claim is described",
"New information is presented, and the information is used to show that two competing explanations can each be seen as correct in some way."
] | Which of the following best describes the organization of paragraph 6 ? | During the peak of the last ice age, northeast Asia (SiberiA. and Alaska were connected by a broad land mass called the Bering Land Bridge. This land bridge existed because so much of Earth's water was frozen in the great ice sheets that sea levels were over 100 meters lower than they are today. Between 25,000 and 10,000 years ago, Siberia, the Bering Land Bndge, and Alaska shared many environmental characteristics. These included a common mammalian fauna of large mammals, a common flora composed of broad grasslands as well as wind-swept dunes and tundra, and a common climate with cold, dry winters and somewhat warmer summers. The recognition that many aspects of the modem flora and fauna were present on both sides of the Bering Sea as remnants of the ice-age landscape led to this region being named Beringia.
It is through Beringia that small groups of large mammal hunters, slowly expanding their hunting territories, eventually colonized North and South America. On this archaeologists generally agree, but that is where the agreement stops. One broad area of disagreement in explaining the peopling of the Americas is the domain of paleoecologists, but it is critical to understanding human history: what was Beringia like?
The Beringian landscape was very different from what it is today. Broad, windswept valleys; glaciated mountains; sparse vegetation; and less moisture created a rather forbidding land mass. This land mass supported herds of now-extinct species of mammoth, bison, and horse and somewhat modern versions of caribou, musk ox, elk, and saiga antelope. These grazers supported in turn a number of impressive carnivores, including the giant short-faced bear, the saber-tooth cat, and a large species of lion.
The presence of mammal species that require grassland vegetation has led Arctic biologist Dale Guthrie to argue that while cold and dry, there must have been broad areas of dense vegetation to support herds of mammoth, horse, and bison. Further, nearly all of the ice-age fauna had teeth that indicate an adaptation to grasses and sedges; they could not have been supported by a modern flora of mosses and lichens. Guthrie has also demonstrated that the landscape must have been subject to intense and continuous winds, especially in winter. He makes this argument based on the anatomy of horse and bison, which do not have the ability to search for food through deep snow cover. They need landscapes with strong winds that remove the winter snows, exposing the dry grasses beneath. Guthrie applied the term " mammoth steppe" to characterize this landscape.
In contrast, Paul Colinvaux has offered a counterargument based on the analysis of pollen in lake sediments dating to the last ice age. He found that the amount of pollen recovered in these sediments is so low that the Beringian landscape during the peak of the last glaciation was more likely to have been what he termed a "polar desert," with little or only sparse vegetation, in no way was it possible that this region could have supported large herds of mammals and thus, human hunters. Guthrie has argued against this view by pointing out that radiocarbon analysis of mammoth, horse, and bison bones from Beringian deposits revealed that the bones date to the period of most intense glaciation.
The argument seemed to be at a standstill until a number of recent studies resulted in a spectacular suite of new finds. The first was the discovery of a 1,000-square-kilometer preserved patch of Beringian vegetation dating to just over 17,000 years ago-the peak of the last ice age The plants were preserved under a thick ash fall from a volcanic eruption. Investigations of the plants found grasses, sedges, mosses, and many other varieties in a nearly continuous cover, as was predicted by Guthrie. But this vegetation had a thin root mat with no soil formation, demonstrating that there was little long-term stability in plant cover, a finding supporting some of the arguments of Colinvaux. A mixture of continuous but thin vegetation supporting herds of large mammals is one that seems plausible and realistic with the available data. | 2464.txt | 3 |
[
"To help explain why some scientists believe that the development of flowering plants led to dinosaur extinction",
"To cast doubt on the theory that the development of flowering plants caused dinosaurs to become extinct",
"To suggest that dinosaurs were able to survive for as long as they did because of the availability of flowering plants",
"To emphasize that duckbill dinosaurs and horned dinosaurs were the first dinosaurs to become extinct"
] | In paragraph 1, why does the author include a discussion of when flowering plants evolved? | Dinosaurs rapidly became extinct about 65 million years ago as part of a mass extinction known as the K-T event, because it is associated with a geological signature known as the K-T boundary, usually a thin band of sedimentation found in various parts of the world (K is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous, derived from the German name Kreidezeit). Many explanations have been proposed for why dinosaurs became extinct. For example, some have blamed dinosaur extinction on the development of flowering plants, which were supposedly more difficult to digest and could have caused constipation or indigestion-except that flowering plants first evolved in the Early Cretaceous, about 60 million years before the dinosaurs died out. In fact, several scientists have suggested that the duckbill dinosaurs and horned dinosaurs, with their complex battery of grinding teeth, evolved to exploit this new resource of rapidly growing flowering plants.Others have blamed extinction on competition from the mammals, which allegedly ate all the dinosaur eggs-except that mammals and dinosaurs appeared at the same time in the Late Triassic, about 190 million years ago, and there is no reason to believe that mammals suddenly acquired a taste for dinosaur eggs after 120 million years of coexistence. Some explanations (such as the one stating that dinosaurs all died of diseases) fail because there is no way to scientifically test them, and they cannot move beyond the realm of speculation and guesswork.
This focus on explaining dinosaur extinction misses an important point: the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous was a global event that killed off organisms up and down the food chain. It wiped out many kinds of plankton in the ocean and many marine organisms that lived on the plankton at the base of the food chain. These included a variety of clams and snails, and especially the ammonites, a group of shelled squidlike creatures that dominated the Mesozoic seas and had survived many previous mass extinctions. The K-T event marked the end of the marine reptiles, such as the mosasaurs and the plesiosaurs, which were the largest creatures that had ever lived in the seas and which ruled the seas long before whales evolved. On land, there was also a crisis among the land plants, in addition to the disappearance of dinosaurs. So any event that can explain the destruction of the base of the food chain (plankton in the ocean, plants on lanD. can better explain what happened to organisms at the top of the food chain, such as the dinosaurs. By contrast, any explanation that focuses strictly on the dinosaurs completely misses the point. The Cretaceous extinctions were a global phenomenon, and dinosaurs were just a part of a bigger picture.
According to one theory, the Age of Dinosaurs ended suddenly 65 million years ago when a giant rock from space plummeted to Earth. Estimated to be ten to fifteen kilometers in diameter, this bolide (either a comet or an asteroiD. was traveling at cosmic speeds of 20-70 kilometers per second, or 45,000-156,000 miles per hour. Such a huge mass traveling at such tremendous speeds carries an enormous amount of energy. When the bolide struck this energy was released and generated a huge shock wave that leveled everything for thousands of kilometers around the impact and caused most of the landscape to burst into flames. The bolide struck an area of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico known as Chicxulub, excavating a crater 15-20 kilometers deep and at least 170 kilometers in diameter. The impact displaced huge volumes of seawater, causing much flood damage in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, the bolide itself excavated 100 cubic kilometers of rock and debris from the site, which rose to an altitude of 100 kilometers. Most of it fell back immediately, but some of it remained as dust in the atmosphere for months. This material, along with the smoke from the fires, shrouded Earth, creating a form of nuclear winter. According to computerized climate models, global temperatures fell to near the freezing point, photosynthesis halted, and most plants on land and in the sea died. With the bottom of the food chain destroyed, dinosaurs could not survive. | 2872.txt | 1 |
[
"inevitably",
"gradually",
"Supposedly",
"Increasingly"
] | The word "allegedly" in the passage is closest in meaning to | Dinosaurs rapidly became extinct about 65 million years ago as part of a mass extinction known as the K-T event, because it is associated with a geological signature known as the K-T boundary, usually a thin band of sedimentation found in various parts of the world (K is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous, derived from the German name Kreidezeit). Many explanations have been proposed for why dinosaurs became extinct. For example, some have blamed dinosaur extinction on the development of flowering plants, which were supposedly more difficult to digest and could have caused constipation or indigestion-except that flowering plants first evolved in the Early Cretaceous, about 60 million years before the dinosaurs died out. In fact, several scientists have suggested that the duckbill dinosaurs and horned dinosaurs, with their complex battery of grinding teeth, evolved to exploit this new resource of rapidly growing flowering plants.Others have blamed extinction on competition from the mammals, which allegedly ate all the dinosaur eggs-except that mammals and dinosaurs appeared at the same time in the Late Triassic, about 190 million years ago, and there is no reason to believe that mammals suddenly acquired a taste for dinosaur eggs after 120 million years of coexistence. Some explanations (such as the one stating that dinosaurs all died of diseases) fail because there is no way to scientifically test them, and they cannot move beyond the realm of speculation and guesswork.
This focus on explaining dinosaur extinction misses an important point: the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous was a global event that killed off organisms up and down the food chain. It wiped out many kinds of plankton in the ocean and many marine organisms that lived on the plankton at the base of the food chain. These included a variety of clams and snails, and especially the ammonites, a group of shelled squidlike creatures that dominated the Mesozoic seas and had survived many previous mass extinctions. The K-T event marked the end of the marine reptiles, such as the mosasaurs and the plesiosaurs, which were the largest creatures that had ever lived in the seas and which ruled the seas long before whales evolved. On land, there was also a crisis among the land plants, in addition to the disappearance of dinosaurs. So any event that can explain the destruction of the base of the food chain (plankton in the ocean, plants on lanD. can better explain what happened to organisms at the top of the food chain, such as the dinosaurs. By contrast, any explanation that focuses strictly on the dinosaurs completely misses the point. The Cretaceous extinctions were a global phenomenon, and dinosaurs were just a part of a bigger picture.
According to one theory, the Age of Dinosaurs ended suddenly 65 million years ago when a giant rock from space plummeted to Earth. Estimated to be ten to fifteen kilometers in diameter, this bolide (either a comet or an asteroiD. was traveling at cosmic speeds of 20-70 kilometers per second, or 45,000-156,000 miles per hour. Such a huge mass traveling at such tremendous speeds carries an enormous amount of energy. When the bolide struck this energy was released and generated a huge shock wave that leveled everything for thousands of kilometers around the impact and caused most of the landscape to burst into flames. The bolide struck an area of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico known as Chicxulub, excavating a crater 15-20 kilometers deep and at least 170 kilometers in diameter. The impact displaced huge volumes of seawater, causing much flood damage in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, the bolide itself excavated 100 cubic kilometers of rock and debris from the site, which rose to an altitude of 100 kilometers. Most of it fell back immediately, but some of it remained as dust in the atmosphere for months. This material, along with the smoke from the fires, shrouded Earth, creating a form of nuclear winter. According to computerized climate models, global temperatures fell to near the freezing point, photosynthesis halted, and most plants on land and in the sea died. With the bottom of the food chain destroyed, dinosaurs could not survive. | 2872.txt | 2 |
[
"mammals would not have been capable of eating dinosaur eggs",
"mammals did not appear in any significant numbers until after the Late Triassic",
"mammals and dinosaurs did not, in fact, compete for any of the same resources",
"mammals and dinosaurs lived together for roughly 120 million years before the extinction"
] | According to paragraph 1 the extinction of the dinosaurs is unlikely to have been the result of competition from mammals because | Dinosaurs rapidly became extinct about 65 million years ago as part of a mass extinction known as the K-T event, because it is associated with a geological signature known as the K-T boundary, usually a thin band of sedimentation found in various parts of the world (K is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous, derived from the German name Kreidezeit). Many explanations have been proposed for why dinosaurs became extinct. For example, some have blamed dinosaur extinction on the development of flowering plants, which were supposedly more difficult to digest and could have caused constipation or indigestion-except that flowering plants first evolved in the Early Cretaceous, about 60 million years before the dinosaurs died out. In fact, several scientists have suggested that the duckbill dinosaurs and horned dinosaurs, with their complex battery of grinding teeth, evolved to exploit this new resource of rapidly growing flowering plants.Others have blamed extinction on competition from the mammals, which allegedly ate all the dinosaur eggs-except that mammals and dinosaurs appeared at the same time in the Late Triassic, about 190 million years ago, and there is no reason to believe that mammals suddenly acquired a taste for dinosaur eggs after 120 million years of coexistence. Some explanations (such as the one stating that dinosaurs all died of diseases) fail because there is no way to scientifically test them, and they cannot move beyond the realm of speculation and guesswork.
This focus on explaining dinosaur extinction misses an important point: the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous was a global event that killed off organisms up and down the food chain. It wiped out many kinds of plankton in the ocean and many marine organisms that lived on the plankton at the base of the food chain. These included a variety of clams and snails, and especially the ammonites, a group of shelled squidlike creatures that dominated the Mesozoic seas and had survived many previous mass extinctions. The K-T event marked the end of the marine reptiles, such as the mosasaurs and the plesiosaurs, which were the largest creatures that had ever lived in the seas and which ruled the seas long before whales evolved. On land, there was also a crisis among the land plants, in addition to the disappearance of dinosaurs. So any event that can explain the destruction of the base of the food chain (plankton in the ocean, plants on lanD. can better explain what happened to organisms at the top of the food chain, such as the dinosaurs. By contrast, any explanation that focuses strictly on the dinosaurs completely misses the point. The Cretaceous extinctions were a global phenomenon, and dinosaurs were just a part of a bigger picture.
According to one theory, the Age of Dinosaurs ended suddenly 65 million years ago when a giant rock from space plummeted to Earth. Estimated to be ten to fifteen kilometers in diameter, this bolide (either a comet or an asteroiD. was traveling at cosmic speeds of 20-70 kilometers per second, or 45,000-156,000 miles per hour. Such a huge mass traveling at such tremendous speeds carries an enormous amount of energy. When the bolide struck this energy was released and generated a huge shock wave that leveled everything for thousands of kilometers around the impact and caused most of the landscape to burst into flames. The bolide struck an area of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico known as Chicxulub, excavating a crater 15-20 kilometers deep and at least 170 kilometers in diameter. The impact displaced huge volumes of seawater, causing much flood damage in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, the bolide itself excavated 100 cubic kilometers of rock and debris from the site, which rose to an altitude of 100 kilometers. Most of it fell back immediately, but some of it remained as dust in the atmosphere for months. This material, along with the smoke from the fires, shrouded Earth, creating a form of nuclear winter. According to computerized climate models, global temperatures fell to near the freezing point, photosynthesis halted, and most plants on land and in the sea died. With the bottom of the food chain destroyed, dinosaurs could not survive. | 2872.txt | 3 |
[
"Dinosaurs became extinct so long ago that no theory about their disappearance can be proven scientifically.",
"Dinosaurs were not the only organisms that went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous period.",
"More marine organisms went extinct during the Cretaceous than did dinosaur species.",
"It is more important to understand how plankton and other marine organisms came to thrive during the Cretaceous period."
] | According to paragraph 2, what is problematic about some scientists' focus on dinosaur extinction? | Dinosaurs rapidly became extinct about 65 million years ago as part of a mass extinction known as the K-T event, because it is associated with a geological signature known as the K-T boundary, usually a thin band of sedimentation found in various parts of the world (K is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous, derived from the German name Kreidezeit). Many explanations have been proposed for why dinosaurs became extinct. For example, some have blamed dinosaur extinction on the development of flowering plants, which were supposedly more difficult to digest and could have caused constipation or indigestion-except that flowering plants first evolved in the Early Cretaceous, about 60 million years before the dinosaurs died out. In fact, several scientists have suggested that the duckbill dinosaurs and horned dinosaurs, with their complex battery of grinding teeth, evolved to exploit this new resource of rapidly growing flowering plants.Others have blamed extinction on competition from the mammals, which allegedly ate all the dinosaur eggs-except that mammals and dinosaurs appeared at the same time in the Late Triassic, about 190 million years ago, and there is no reason to believe that mammals suddenly acquired a taste for dinosaur eggs after 120 million years of coexistence. Some explanations (such as the one stating that dinosaurs all died of diseases) fail because there is no way to scientifically test them, and they cannot move beyond the realm of speculation and guesswork.
This focus on explaining dinosaur extinction misses an important point: the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous was a global event that killed off organisms up and down the food chain. It wiped out many kinds of plankton in the ocean and many marine organisms that lived on the plankton at the base of the food chain. These included a variety of clams and snails, and especially the ammonites, a group of shelled squidlike creatures that dominated the Mesozoic seas and had survived many previous mass extinctions. The K-T event marked the end of the marine reptiles, such as the mosasaurs and the plesiosaurs, which were the largest creatures that had ever lived in the seas and which ruled the seas long before whales evolved. On land, there was also a crisis among the land plants, in addition to the disappearance of dinosaurs. So any event that can explain the destruction of the base of the food chain (plankton in the ocean, plants on lanD. can better explain what happened to organisms at the top of the food chain, such as the dinosaurs. By contrast, any explanation that focuses strictly on the dinosaurs completely misses the point. The Cretaceous extinctions were a global phenomenon, and dinosaurs were just a part of a bigger picture.
According to one theory, the Age of Dinosaurs ended suddenly 65 million years ago when a giant rock from space plummeted to Earth. Estimated to be ten to fifteen kilometers in diameter, this bolide (either a comet or an asteroiD. was traveling at cosmic speeds of 20-70 kilometers per second, or 45,000-156,000 miles per hour. Such a huge mass traveling at such tremendous speeds carries an enormous amount of energy. When the bolide struck this energy was released and generated a huge shock wave that leveled everything for thousands of kilometers around the impact and caused most of the landscape to burst into flames. The bolide struck an area of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico known as Chicxulub, excavating a crater 15-20 kilometers deep and at least 170 kilometers in diameter. The impact displaced huge volumes of seawater, causing much flood damage in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, the bolide itself excavated 100 cubic kilometers of rock and debris from the site, which rose to an altitude of 100 kilometers. Most of it fell back immediately, but some of it remained as dust in the atmosphere for months. This material, along with the smoke from the fires, shrouded Earth, creating a form of nuclear winter. According to computerized climate models, global temperatures fell to near the freezing point, photosynthesis halted, and most plants on land and in the sea died. With the bottom of the food chain destroyed, dinosaurs could not survive. | 2872.txt | 1 |
[
"early species of whales",
"marine reptiles",
"various species of clams",
"many species of land plants"
] | According to paragraph 2, each of the following became extinct during the K-T event EXCEPT | Dinosaurs rapidly became extinct about 65 million years ago as part of a mass extinction known as the K-T event, because it is associated with a geological signature known as the K-T boundary, usually a thin band of sedimentation found in various parts of the world (K is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous, derived from the German name Kreidezeit). Many explanations have been proposed for why dinosaurs became extinct. For example, some have blamed dinosaur extinction on the development of flowering plants, which were supposedly more difficult to digest and could have caused constipation or indigestion-except that flowering plants first evolved in the Early Cretaceous, about 60 million years before the dinosaurs died out. In fact, several scientists have suggested that the duckbill dinosaurs and horned dinosaurs, with their complex battery of grinding teeth, evolved to exploit this new resource of rapidly growing flowering plants.Others have blamed extinction on competition from the mammals, which allegedly ate all the dinosaur eggs-except that mammals and dinosaurs appeared at the same time in the Late Triassic, about 190 million years ago, and there is no reason to believe that mammals suddenly acquired a taste for dinosaur eggs after 120 million years of coexistence. Some explanations (such as the one stating that dinosaurs all died of diseases) fail because there is no way to scientifically test them, and they cannot move beyond the realm of speculation and guesswork.
This focus on explaining dinosaur extinction misses an important point: the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous was a global event that killed off organisms up and down the food chain. It wiped out many kinds of plankton in the ocean and many marine organisms that lived on the plankton at the base of the food chain. These included a variety of clams and snails, and especially the ammonites, a group of shelled squidlike creatures that dominated the Mesozoic seas and had survived many previous mass extinctions. The K-T event marked the end of the marine reptiles, such as the mosasaurs and the plesiosaurs, which were the largest creatures that had ever lived in the seas and which ruled the seas long before whales evolved. On land, there was also a crisis among the land plants, in addition to the disappearance of dinosaurs. So any event that can explain the destruction of the base of the food chain (plankton in the ocean, plants on lanD. can better explain what happened to organisms at the top of the food chain, such as the dinosaurs. By contrast, any explanation that focuses strictly on the dinosaurs completely misses the point. The Cretaceous extinctions were a global phenomenon, and dinosaurs were just a part of a bigger picture.
According to one theory, the Age of Dinosaurs ended suddenly 65 million years ago when a giant rock from space plummeted to Earth. Estimated to be ten to fifteen kilometers in diameter, this bolide (either a comet or an asteroiD. was traveling at cosmic speeds of 20-70 kilometers per second, or 45,000-156,000 miles per hour. Such a huge mass traveling at such tremendous speeds carries an enormous amount of energy. When the bolide struck this energy was released and generated a huge shock wave that leveled everything for thousands of kilometers around the impact and caused most of the landscape to burst into flames. The bolide struck an area of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico known as Chicxulub, excavating a crater 15-20 kilometers deep and at least 170 kilometers in diameter. The impact displaced huge volumes of seawater, causing much flood damage in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, the bolide itself excavated 100 cubic kilometers of rock and debris from the site, which rose to an altitude of 100 kilometers. Most of it fell back immediately, but some of it remained as dust in the atmosphere for months. This material, along with the smoke from the fires, shrouded Earth, creating a form of nuclear winter. According to computerized climate models, global temperatures fell to near the freezing point, photosynthesis halted, and most plants on land and in the sea died. With the bottom of the food chain destroyed, dinosaurs could not survive. | 2872.txt | 0 |
[
"They were among the largest creatures that ever lived.",
"They existed at the lowest level of the food chain.",
"They had been able to survive in the Mesozoic seas.",
"They had survived many previous mass extinctions."
] | What makes the extinction of "the ammonites" especially significant? | Dinosaurs rapidly became extinct about 65 million years ago as part of a mass extinction known as the K-T event, because it is associated with a geological signature known as the K-T boundary, usually a thin band of sedimentation found in various parts of the world (K is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous, derived from the German name Kreidezeit). Many explanations have been proposed for why dinosaurs became extinct. For example, some have blamed dinosaur extinction on the development of flowering plants, which were supposedly more difficult to digest and could have caused constipation or indigestion-except that flowering plants first evolved in the Early Cretaceous, about 60 million years before the dinosaurs died out. In fact, several scientists have suggested that the duckbill dinosaurs and horned dinosaurs, with their complex battery of grinding teeth, evolved to exploit this new resource of rapidly growing flowering plants.Others have blamed extinction on competition from the mammals, which allegedly ate all the dinosaur eggs-except that mammals and dinosaurs appeared at the same time in the Late Triassic, about 190 million years ago, and there is no reason to believe that mammals suddenly acquired a taste for dinosaur eggs after 120 million years of coexistence. Some explanations (such as the one stating that dinosaurs all died of diseases) fail because there is no way to scientifically test them, and they cannot move beyond the realm of speculation and guesswork.
This focus on explaining dinosaur extinction misses an important point: the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous was a global event that killed off organisms up and down the food chain. It wiped out many kinds of plankton in the ocean and many marine organisms that lived on the plankton at the base of the food chain. These included a variety of clams and snails, and especially the ammonites, a group of shelled squidlike creatures that dominated the Mesozoic seas and had survived many previous mass extinctions. The K-T event marked the end of the marine reptiles, such as the mosasaurs and the plesiosaurs, which were the largest creatures that had ever lived in the seas and which ruled the seas long before whales evolved. On land, there was also a crisis among the land plants, in addition to the disappearance of dinosaurs. So any event that can explain the destruction of the base of the food chain (plankton in the ocean, plants on lanD. can better explain what happened to organisms at the top of the food chain, such as the dinosaurs. By contrast, any explanation that focuses strictly on the dinosaurs completely misses the point. The Cretaceous extinctions were a global phenomenon, and dinosaurs were just a part of a bigger picture.
According to one theory, the Age of Dinosaurs ended suddenly 65 million years ago when a giant rock from space plummeted to Earth. Estimated to be ten to fifteen kilometers in diameter, this bolide (either a comet or an asteroiD. was traveling at cosmic speeds of 20-70 kilometers per second, or 45,000-156,000 miles per hour. Such a huge mass traveling at such tremendous speeds carries an enormous amount of energy. When the bolide struck this energy was released and generated a huge shock wave that leveled everything for thousands of kilometers around the impact and caused most of the landscape to burst into flames. The bolide struck an area of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico known as Chicxulub, excavating a crater 15-20 kilometers deep and at least 170 kilometers in diameter. The impact displaced huge volumes of seawater, causing much flood damage in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, the bolide itself excavated 100 cubic kilometers of rock and debris from the site, which rose to an altitude of 100 kilometers. Most of it fell back immediately, but some of it remained as dust in the atmosphere for months. This material, along with the smoke from the fires, shrouded Earth, creating a form of nuclear winter. According to computerized climate models, global temperatures fell to near the freezing point, photosynthesis halted, and most plants on land and in the sea died. With the bottom of the food chain destroyed, dinosaurs could not survive. | 2872.txt | 3 |
[
"slowed",
"stopped",
"contracted",
"declined"
] | The word "halted" in the passage is closest in meaning to | Dinosaurs rapidly became extinct about 65 million years ago as part of a mass extinction known as the K-T event, because it is associated with a geological signature known as the K-T boundary, usually a thin band of sedimentation found in various parts of the world (K is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous, derived from the German name Kreidezeit). Many explanations have been proposed for why dinosaurs became extinct. For example, some have blamed dinosaur extinction on the development of flowering plants, which were supposedly more difficult to digest and could have caused constipation or indigestion-except that flowering plants first evolved in the Early Cretaceous, about 60 million years before the dinosaurs died out. In fact, several scientists have suggested that the duckbill dinosaurs and horned dinosaurs, with their complex battery of grinding teeth, evolved to exploit this new resource of rapidly growing flowering plants.Others have blamed extinction on competition from the mammals, which allegedly ate all the dinosaur eggs-except that mammals and dinosaurs appeared at the same time in the Late Triassic, about 190 million years ago, and there is no reason to believe that mammals suddenly acquired a taste for dinosaur eggs after 120 million years of coexistence. Some explanations (such as the one stating that dinosaurs all died of diseases) fail because there is no way to scientifically test them, and they cannot move beyond the realm of speculation and guesswork.
This focus on explaining dinosaur extinction misses an important point: the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous was a global event that killed off organisms up and down the food chain. It wiped out many kinds of plankton in the ocean and many marine organisms that lived on the plankton at the base of the food chain. These included a variety of clams and snails, and especially the ammonites, a group of shelled squidlike creatures that dominated the Mesozoic seas and had survived many previous mass extinctions. The K-T event marked the end of the marine reptiles, such as the mosasaurs and the plesiosaurs, which were the largest creatures that had ever lived in the seas and which ruled the seas long before whales evolved. On land, there was also a crisis among the land plants, in addition to the disappearance of dinosaurs. So any event that can explain the destruction of the base of the food chain (plankton in the ocean, plants on lanD. can better explain what happened to organisms at the top of the food chain, such as the dinosaurs. By contrast, any explanation that focuses strictly on the dinosaurs completely misses the point. The Cretaceous extinctions were a global phenomenon, and dinosaurs were just a part of a bigger picture.
According to one theory, the Age of Dinosaurs ended suddenly 65 million years ago when a giant rock from space plummeted to Earth. Estimated to be ten to fifteen kilometers in diameter, this bolide (either a comet or an asteroiD. was traveling at cosmic speeds of 20-70 kilometers per second, or 45,000-156,000 miles per hour. Such a huge mass traveling at such tremendous speeds carries an enormous amount of energy. When the bolide struck this energy was released and generated a huge shock wave that leveled everything for thousands of kilometers around the impact and caused most of the landscape to burst into flames. The bolide struck an area of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico known as Chicxulub, excavating a crater 15-20 kilometers deep and at least 170 kilometers in diameter. The impact displaced huge volumes of seawater, causing much flood damage in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, the bolide itself excavated 100 cubic kilometers of rock and debris from the site, which rose to an altitude of 100 kilometers. Most of it fell back immediately, but some of it remained as dust in the atmosphere for months. This material, along with the smoke from the fires, shrouded Earth, creating a form of nuclear winter. According to computerized climate models, global temperatures fell to near the freezing point, photosynthesis halted, and most plants on land and in the sea died. With the bottom of the food chain destroyed, dinosaurs could not survive. | 2872.txt | 1 |
[
"exclusively",
"mainly",
"initially",
"Wrongly"
] | The word "strictly" in the passage is closest in meaning to | Dinosaurs rapidly became extinct about 65 million years ago as part of a mass extinction known as the K-T event, because it is associated with a geological signature known as the K-T boundary, usually a thin band of sedimentation found in various parts of the world (K is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous, derived from the German name Kreidezeit). Many explanations have been proposed for why dinosaurs became extinct. For example, some have blamed dinosaur extinction on the development of flowering plants, which were supposedly more difficult to digest and could have caused constipation or indigestion-except that flowering plants first evolved in the Early Cretaceous, about 60 million years before the dinosaurs died out. In fact, several scientists have suggested that the duckbill dinosaurs and horned dinosaurs, with their complex battery of grinding teeth, evolved to exploit this new resource of rapidly growing flowering plants.Others have blamed extinction on competition from the mammals, which allegedly ate all the dinosaur eggs-except that mammals and dinosaurs appeared at the same time in the Late Triassic, about 190 million years ago, and there is no reason to believe that mammals suddenly acquired a taste for dinosaur eggs after 120 million years of coexistence. Some explanations (such as the one stating that dinosaurs all died of diseases) fail because there is no way to scientifically test them, and they cannot move beyond the realm of speculation and guesswork.
This focus on explaining dinosaur extinction misses an important point: the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous was a global event that killed off organisms up and down the food chain. It wiped out many kinds of plankton in the ocean and many marine organisms that lived on the plankton at the base of the food chain. These included a variety of clams and snails, and especially the ammonites, a group of shelled squidlike creatures that dominated the Mesozoic seas and had survived many previous mass extinctions. The K-T event marked the end of the marine reptiles, such as the mosasaurs and the plesiosaurs, which were the largest creatures that had ever lived in the seas and which ruled the seas long before whales evolved. On land, there was also a crisis among the land plants, in addition to the disappearance of dinosaurs. So any event that can explain the destruction of the base of the food chain (plankton in the ocean, plants on lanD. can better explain what happened to organisms at the top of the food chain, such as the dinosaurs. By contrast, any explanation that focuses strictly on the dinosaurs completely misses the point. The Cretaceous extinctions were a global phenomenon, and dinosaurs were just a part of a bigger picture.
According to one theory, the Age of Dinosaurs ended suddenly 65 million years ago when a giant rock from space plummeted to Earth. Estimated to be ten to fifteen kilometers in diameter, this bolide (either a comet or an asteroiD. was traveling at cosmic speeds of 20-70 kilometers per second, or 45,000-156,000 miles per hour. Such a huge mass traveling at such tremendous speeds carries an enormous amount of energy. When the bolide struck this energy was released and generated a huge shock wave that leveled everything for thousands of kilometers around the impact and caused most of the landscape to burst into flames. The bolide struck an area of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico known as Chicxulub, excavating a crater 15-20 kilometers deep and at least 170 kilometers in diameter. The impact displaced huge volumes of seawater, causing much flood damage in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, the bolide itself excavated 100 cubic kilometers of rock and debris from the site, which rose to an altitude of 100 kilometers. Most of it fell back immediately, but some of it remained as dust in the atmosphere for months. This material, along with the smoke from the fires, shrouded Earth, creating a form of nuclear winter. According to computerized climate models, global temperatures fell to near the freezing point, photosynthesis halted, and most plants on land and in the sea died. With the bottom of the food chain destroyed, dinosaurs could not survive. | 2872.txt | 0 |
[
"collapse",
"disturbance",
"critical situation",
"loss"
] | The word "crisis" in the passage is closest in meaning to | Dinosaurs rapidly became extinct about 65 million years ago as part of a mass extinction known as the K-T event, because it is associated with a geological signature known as the K-T boundary, usually a thin band of sedimentation found in various parts of the world (K is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous, derived from the German name Kreidezeit). Many explanations have been proposed for why dinosaurs became extinct. For example, some have blamed dinosaur extinction on the development of flowering plants, which were supposedly more difficult to digest and could have caused constipation or indigestion-except that flowering plants first evolved in the Early Cretaceous, about 60 million years before the dinosaurs died out. In fact, several scientists have suggested that the duckbill dinosaurs and horned dinosaurs, with their complex battery of grinding teeth, evolved to exploit this new resource of rapidly growing flowering plants.Others have blamed extinction on competition from the mammals, which allegedly ate all the dinosaur eggs-except that mammals and dinosaurs appeared at the same time in the Late Triassic, about 190 million years ago, and there is no reason to believe that mammals suddenly acquired a taste for dinosaur eggs after 120 million years of coexistence. Some explanations (such as the one stating that dinosaurs all died of diseases) fail because there is no way to scientifically test them, and they cannot move beyond the realm of speculation and guesswork.
This focus on explaining dinosaur extinction misses an important point: the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous was a global event that killed off organisms up and down the food chain. It wiped out many kinds of plankton in the ocean and many marine organisms that lived on the plankton at the base of the food chain. These included a variety of clams and snails, and especially the ammonites, a group of shelled squidlike creatures that dominated the Mesozoic seas and had survived many previous mass extinctions. The K-T event marked the end of the marine reptiles, such as the mosasaurs and the plesiosaurs, which were the largest creatures that had ever lived in the seas and which ruled the seas long before whales evolved. On land, there was also a crisis among the land plants, in addition to the disappearance of dinosaurs. So any event that can explain the destruction of the base of the food chain (plankton in the ocean, plants on lanD. can better explain what happened to organisms at the top of the food chain, such as the dinosaurs. By contrast, any explanation that focuses strictly on the dinosaurs completely misses the point. The Cretaceous extinctions were a global phenomenon, and dinosaurs were just a part of a bigger picture.
According to one theory, the Age of Dinosaurs ended suddenly 65 million years ago when a giant rock from space plummeted to Earth. Estimated to be ten to fifteen kilometers in diameter, this bolide (either a comet or an asteroiD. was traveling at cosmic speeds of 20-70 kilometers per second, or 45,000-156,000 miles per hour. Such a huge mass traveling at such tremendous speeds carries an enormous amount of energy. When the bolide struck this energy was released and generated a huge shock wave that leveled everything for thousands of kilometers around the impact and caused most of the landscape to burst into flames. The bolide struck an area of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico known as Chicxulub, excavating a crater 15-20 kilometers deep and at least 170 kilometers in diameter. The impact displaced huge volumes of seawater, causing much flood damage in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, the bolide itself excavated 100 cubic kilometers of rock and debris from the site, which rose to an altitude of 100 kilometers. Most of it fell back immediately, but some of it remained as dust in the atmosphere for months. This material, along with the smoke from the fires, shrouded Earth, creating a form of nuclear winter. According to computerized climate models, global temperatures fell to near the freezing point, photosynthesis halted, and most plants on land and in the sea died. With the bottom of the food chain destroyed, dinosaurs could not survive. | 2872.txt | 2 |
[
"Paragraph 3 provides an alternative explanation to the one provided in paragraph 2.",
"Paragraph 3 provides an explanation that satisfies the conditions set forth in paragraph 2.",
"Paragraph 3 provides the facts to support the theory presented in paragraph 2.",
"Paragraph 3 presents a theory that calls into question the position described in paragraph 2."
] | How does paragraph 3 relate to paragraph 2? | Dinosaurs rapidly became extinct about 65 million years ago as part of a mass extinction known as the K-T event, because it is associated with a geological signature known as the K-T boundary, usually a thin band of sedimentation found in various parts of the world (K is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous, derived from the German name Kreidezeit). Many explanations have been proposed for why dinosaurs became extinct. For example, some have blamed dinosaur extinction on the development of flowering plants, which were supposedly more difficult to digest and could have caused constipation or indigestion-except that flowering plants first evolved in the Early Cretaceous, about 60 million years before the dinosaurs died out. In fact, several scientists have suggested that the duckbill dinosaurs and horned dinosaurs, with their complex battery of grinding teeth, evolved to exploit this new resource of rapidly growing flowering plants.Others have blamed extinction on competition from the mammals, which allegedly ate all the dinosaur eggs-except that mammals and dinosaurs appeared at the same time in the Late Triassic, about 190 million years ago, and there is no reason to believe that mammals suddenly acquired a taste for dinosaur eggs after 120 million years of coexistence. Some explanations (such as the one stating that dinosaurs all died of diseases) fail because there is no way to scientifically test them, and they cannot move beyond the realm of speculation and guesswork.
This focus on explaining dinosaur extinction misses an important point: the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous was a global event that killed off organisms up and down the food chain. It wiped out many kinds of plankton in the ocean and many marine organisms that lived on the plankton at the base of the food chain. These included a variety of clams and snails, and especially the ammonites, a group of shelled squidlike creatures that dominated the Mesozoic seas and had survived many previous mass extinctions. The K-T event marked the end of the marine reptiles, such as the mosasaurs and the plesiosaurs, which were the largest creatures that had ever lived in the seas and which ruled the seas long before whales evolved. On land, there was also a crisis among the land plants, in addition to the disappearance of dinosaurs. So any event that can explain the destruction of the base of the food chain (plankton in the ocean, plants on lanD. can better explain what happened to organisms at the top of the food chain, such as the dinosaurs. By contrast, any explanation that focuses strictly on the dinosaurs completely misses the point. The Cretaceous extinctions were a global phenomenon, and dinosaurs were just a part of a bigger picture.
According to one theory, the Age of Dinosaurs ended suddenly 65 million years ago when a giant rock from space plummeted to Earth. Estimated to be ten to fifteen kilometers in diameter, this bolide (either a comet or an asteroiD. was traveling at cosmic speeds of 20-70 kilometers per second, or 45,000-156,000 miles per hour. Such a huge mass traveling at such tremendous speeds carries an enormous amount of energy. When the bolide struck this energy was released and generated a huge shock wave that leveled everything for thousands of kilometers around the impact and caused most of the landscape to burst into flames. The bolide struck an area of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico known as Chicxulub, excavating a crater 15-20 kilometers deep and at least 170 kilometers in diameter. The impact displaced huge volumes of seawater, causing much flood damage in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, the bolide itself excavated 100 cubic kilometers of rock and debris from the site, which rose to an altitude of 100 kilometers. Most of it fell back immediately, but some of it remained as dust in the atmosphere for months. This material, along with the smoke from the fires, shrouded Earth, creating a form of nuclear winter. According to computerized climate models, global temperatures fell to near the freezing point, photosynthesis halted, and most plants on land and in the sea died. With the bottom of the food chain destroyed, dinosaurs could not survive. | 2872.txt | 1 |
[
"Why did the bolide fall to Earth",
"How fast was the bolide traveling",
"How was the bolide capable of generating a shock wave",
"How did the bolide cause flood damage to the Caribbean"
] | Paragraph 3 answers all of the following questions EXCEPT: | Dinosaurs rapidly became extinct about 65 million years ago as part of a mass extinction known as the K-T event, because it is associated with a geological signature known as the K-T boundary, usually a thin band of sedimentation found in various parts of the world (K is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous, derived from the German name Kreidezeit). Many explanations have been proposed for why dinosaurs became extinct. For example, some have blamed dinosaur extinction on the development of flowering plants, which were supposedly more difficult to digest and could have caused constipation or indigestion-except that flowering plants first evolved in the Early Cretaceous, about 60 million years before the dinosaurs died out. In fact, several scientists have suggested that the duckbill dinosaurs and horned dinosaurs, with their complex battery of grinding teeth, evolved to exploit this new resource of rapidly growing flowering plants.Others have blamed extinction on competition from the mammals, which allegedly ate all the dinosaur eggs-except that mammals and dinosaurs appeared at the same time in the Late Triassic, about 190 million years ago, and there is no reason to believe that mammals suddenly acquired a taste for dinosaur eggs after 120 million years of coexistence. Some explanations (such as the one stating that dinosaurs all died of diseases) fail because there is no way to scientifically test them, and they cannot move beyond the realm of speculation and guesswork.
This focus on explaining dinosaur extinction misses an important point: the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous was a global event that killed off organisms up and down the food chain. It wiped out many kinds of plankton in the ocean and many marine organisms that lived on the plankton at the base of the food chain. These included a variety of clams and snails, and especially the ammonites, a group of shelled squidlike creatures that dominated the Mesozoic seas and had survived many previous mass extinctions. The K-T event marked the end of the marine reptiles, such as the mosasaurs and the plesiosaurs, which were the largest creatures that had ever lived in the seas and which ruled the seas long before whales evolved. On land, there was also a crisis among the land plants, in addition to the disappearance of dinosaurs. So any event that can explain the destruction of the base of the food chain (plankton in the ocean, plants on lanD. can better explain what happened to organisms at the top of the food chain, such as the dinosaurs. By contrast, any explanation that focuses strictly on the dinosaurs completely misses the point. The Cretaceous extinctions were a global phenomenon, and dinosaurs were just a part of a bigger picture.
According to one theory, the Age of Dinosaurs ended suddenly 65 million years ago when a giant rock from space plummeted to Earth. Estimated to be ten to fifteen kilometers in diameter, this bolide (either a comet or an asteroiD. was traveling at cosmic speeds of 20-70 kilometers per second, or 45,000-156,000 miles per hour. Such a huge mass traveling at such tremendous speeds carries an enormous amount of energy. When the bolide struck this energy was released and generated a huge shock wave that leveled everything for thousands of kilometers around the impact and caused most of the landscape to burst into flames. The bolide struck an area of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico known as Chicxulub, excavating a crater 15-20 kilometers deep and at least 170 kilometers in diameter. The impact displaced huge volumes of seawater, causing much flood damage in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, the bolide itself excavated 100 cubic kilometers of rock and debris from the site, which rose to an altitude of 100 kilometers. Most of it fell back immediately, but some of it remained as dust in the atmosphere for months. This material, along with the smoke from the fires, shrouded Earth, creating a form of nuclear winter. According to computerized climate models, global temperatures fell to near the freezing point, photosynthesis halted, and most plants on land and in the sea died. With the bottom of the food chain destroyed, dinosaurs could not survive. | 2872.txt | 0 |
[
"sunlight being blocked for months by dust and smoke in Earth's atmosphere",
"widespread flooding that followed the displacement of huge volumes of seawater",
"the leveling of the landscape by the shock wave that was generated when the bolide struck Earth",
"the rise in global temperatures caused by the fires that burned much of the landscape"
] | Paragraph 3 strongly suggests that if the bolide impact theory is correct, the majority of the extinctions associated with the K-T event resulted from | Dinosaurs rapidly became extinct about 65 million years ago as part of a mass extinction known as the K-T event, because it is associated with a geological signature known as the K-T boundary, usually a thin band of sedimentation found in various parts of the world (K is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous, derived from the German name Kreidezeit). Many explanations have been proposed for why dinosaurs became extinct. For example, some have blamed dinosaur extinction on the development of flowering plants, which were supposedly more difficult to digest and could have caused constipation or indigestion-except that flowering plants first evolved in the Early Cretaceous, about 60 million years before the dinosaurs died out. In fact, several scientists have suggested that the duckbill dinosaurs and horned dinosaurs, with their complex battery of grinding teeth, evolved to exploit this new resource of rapidly growing flowering plants.Others have blamed extinction on competition from the mammals, which allegedly ate all the dinosaur eggs-except that mammals and dinosaurs appeared at the same time in the Late Triassic, about 190 million years ago, and there is no reason to believe that mammals suddenly acquired a taste for dinosaur eggs after 120 million years of coexistence. Some explanations (such as the one stating that dinosaurs all died of diseases) fail because there is no way to scientifically test them, and they cannot move beyond the realm of speculation and guesswork.
This focus on explaining dinosaur extinction misses an important point: the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous was a global event that killed off organisms up and down the food chain. It wiped out many kinds of plankton in the ocean and many marine organisms that lived on the plankton at the base of the food chain. These included a variety of clams and snails, and especially the ammonites, a group of shelled squidlike creatures that dominated the Mesozoic seas and had survived many previous mass extinctions. The K-T event marked the end of the marine reptiles, such as the mosasaurs and the plesiosaurs, which were the largest creatures that had ever lived in the seas and which ruled the seas long before whales evolved. On land, there was also a crisis among the land plants, in addition to the disappearance of dinosaurs. So any event that can explain the destruction of the base of the food chain (plankton in the ocean, plants on lanD. can better explain what happened to organisms at the top of the food chain, such as the dinosaurs. By contrast, any explanation that focuses strictly on the dinosaurs completely misses the point. The Cretaceous extinctions were a global phenomenon, and dinosaurs were just a part of a bigger picture.
According to one theory, the Age of Dinosaurs ended suddenly 65 million years ago when a giant rock from space plummeted to Earth. Estimated to be ten to fifteen kilometers in diameter, this bolide (either a comet or an asteroiD. was traveling at cosmic speeds of 20-70 kilometers per second, or 45,000-156,000 miles per hour. Such a huge mass traveling at such tremendous speeds carries an enormous amount of energy. When the bolide struck this energy was released and generated a huge shock wave that leveled everything for thousands of kilometers around the impact and caused most of the landscape to burst into flames. The bolide struck an area of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico known as Chicxulub, excavating a crater 15-20 kilometers deep and at least 170 kilometers in diameter. The impact displaced huge volumes of seawater, causing much flood damage in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, the bolide itself excavated 100 cubic kilometers of rock and debris from the site, which rose to an altitude of 100 kilometers. Most of it fell back immediately, but some of it remained as dust in the atmosphere for months. This material, along with the smoke from the fires, shrouded Earth, creating a form of nuclear winter. According to computerized climate models, global temperatures fell to near the freezing point, photosynthesis halted, and most plants on land and in the sea died. With the bottom of the food chain destroyed, dinosaurs could not survive. | 2872.txt | 0 |
[
"people may forget them",
"your friends may write down incorrectly",
"postmen may make mistakes",
"machines may go wrong"
] | The main problem with any postal codes, according to the passage, is that | There's one thing above all wrong with the new British postal codes: not everyone has that sort of memory. Some of us, of course, forget even house numbers and the present postal districts, but that matters less when there is a human being at every stage to spot the mistake. When all the sorting is done in one operation by a man sitting at a machine, typing special marks onto an envelope, one slip on your part could send your letter away outside the area where the local postman or a friendly neighbor knows your name.
Otherwise the new codes are all the Post Office claims. They are the most carefully designed in the world, ideal for computers. A confusion of letters and numbers, they have two parts, separated by the gap in the middle. Together they classify a letter not only to the city where it is going but right down to the round of the particular postman who is to carry it, and even to a group of houses or a single big building. In the long run, this will speed the mail and cut cost.
The long run is 10 years away, though. In fact there are only 12 post offices in the country which have the right machines fully working, and the system cannot work at full efficiency until it is nationwide. Yet the Post Office wants us to start using the codes now, so that we shall be trained when the machines are ready.
But will we? A businessman I met, praising the virtues of the new system, explained that large companies like his could have codes of their own. What was his code? "Oh, dear me. Now you've got me. Awfully sorry. Hold on a minute while I find a sheet of my headed notepaper. " Then he read painfully, as if spelling out a word in a foreign language, "W-1-X-6-A-B. " | 1485.txt | 0 |
[
"giving an efficient service",
"being new and improved",
"being quick to use",
"being easy to use"
] | The British Post Office praises the codes as _ . | There's one thing above all wrong with the new British postal codes: not everyone has that sort of memory. Some of us, of course, forget even house numbers and the present postal districts, but that matters less when there is a human being at every stage to spot the mistake. When all the sorting is done in one operation by a man sitting at a machine, typing special marks onto an envelope, one slip on your part could send your letter away outside the area where the local postman or a friendly neighbor knows your name.
Otherwise the new codes are all the Post Office claims. They are the most carefully designed in the world, ideal for computers. A confusion of letters and numbers, they have two parts, separated by the gap in the middle. Together they classify a letter not only to the city where it is going but right down to the round of the particular postman who is to carry it, and even to a group of houses or a single big building. In the long run, this will speed the mail and cut cost.
The long run is 10 years away, though. In fact there are only 12 post offices in the country which have the right machines fully working, and the system cannot work at full efficiency until it is nationwide. Yet the Post Office wants us to start using the codes now, so that we shall be trained when the machines are ready.
But will we? A businessman I met, praising the virtues of the new system, explained that large companies like his could have codes of their own. What was his code? "Oh, dear me. Now you've got me. Awfully sorry. Hold on a minute while I find a sheet of my headed notepaper. " Then he read painfully, as if spelling out a word in a foreign language, "W-1-X-6-A-B. " | 1485.txt | 0 |
[
"letters spaced out",
"numbers in order",
"sets of letters and numbers",
"letters and numbers separately"
] | The British codes are described as being _ . | There's one thing above all wrong with the new British postal codes: not everyone has that sort of memory. Some of us, of course, forget even house numbers and the present postal districts, but that matters less when there is a human being at every stage to spot the mistake. When all the sorting is done in one operation by a man sitting at a machine, typing special marks onto an envelope, one slip on your part could send your letter away outside the area where the local postman or a friendly neighbor knows your name.
Otherwise the new codes are all the Post Office claims. They are the most carefully designed in the world, ideal for computers. A confusion of letters and numbers, they have two parts, separated by the gap in the middle. Together they classify a letter not only to the city where it is going but right down to the round of the particular postman who is to carry it, and even to a group of houses or a single big building. In the long run, this will speed the mail and cut cost.
The long run is 10 years away, though. In fact there are only 12 post offices in the country which have the right machines fully working, and the system cannot work at full efficiency until it is nationwide. Yet the Post Office wants us to start using the codes now, so that we shall be trained when the machines are ready.
But will we? A businessman I met, praising the virtues of the new system, explained that large companies like his could have codes of their own. What was his code? "Oh, dear me. Now you've got me. Awfully sorry. Hold on a minute while I find a sheet of my headed notepaper. " Then he read painfully, as if spelling out a word in a foreign language, "W-1-X-6-A-B. " | 1485.txt | 2 |
[
"throughout the country",
"in all post offices with trained staff",
"in all post offices",
"in some post offices with machines"
] | The system is now being used_ . | There's one thing above all wrong with the new British postal codes: not everyone has that sort of memory. Some of us, of course, forget even house numbers and the present postal districts, but that matters less when there is a human being at every stage to spot the mistake. When all the sorting is done in one operation by a man sitting at a machine, typing special marks onto an envelope, one slip on your part could send your letter away outside the area where the local postman or a friendly neighbor knows your name.
Otherwise the new codes are all the Post Office claims. They are the most carefully designed in the world, ideal for computers. A confusion of letters and numbers, they have two parts, separated by the gap in the middle. Together they classify a letter not only to the city where it is going but right down to the round of the particular postman who is to carry it, and even to a group of houses or a single big building. In the long run, this will speed the mail and cut cost.
The long run is 10 years away, though. In fact there are only 12 post offices in the country which have the right machines fully working, and the system cannot work at full efficiency until it is nationwide. Yet the Post Office wants us to start using the codes now, so that we shall be trained when the machines are ready.
But will we? A businessman I met, praising the virtues of the new system, explained that large companies like his could have codes of their own. What was his code? "Oh, dear me. Now you've got me. Awfully sorry. Hold on a minute while I find a sheet of my headed notepaper. " Then he read painfully, as if spelling out a word in a foreign language, "W-1-X-6-A-B. " | 1485.txt | 3 |
[
"to find out",
"to write",
"to spell",
"to read out"
] | The businessman found his post codes was difficult | There's one thing above all wrong with the new British postal codes: not everyone has that sort of memory. Some of us, of course, forget even house numbers and the present postal districts, but that matters less when there is a human being at every stage to spot the mistake. When all the sorting is done in one operation by a man sitting at a machine, typing special marks onto an envelope, one slip on your part could send your letter away outside the area where the local postman or a friendly neighbor knows your name.
Otherwise the new codes are all the Post Office claims. They are the most carefully designed in the world, ideal for computers. A confusion of letters and numbers, they have two parts, separated by the gap in the middle. Together they classify a letter not only to the city where it is going but right down to the round of the particular postman who is to carry it, and even to a group of houses or a single big building. In the long run, this will speed the mail and cut cost.
The long run is 10 years away, though. In fact there are only 12 post offices in the country which have the right machines fully working, and the system cannot work at full efficiency until it is nationwide. Yet the Post Office wants us to start using the codes now, so that we shall be trained when the machines are ready.
But will we? A businessman I met, praising the virtues of the new system, explained that large companies like his could have codes of their own. What was his code? "Oh, dear me. Now you've got me. Awfully sorry. Hold on a minute while I find a sheet of my headed notepaper. " Then he read painfully, as if spelling out a word in a foreign language, "W-1-X-6-A-B. " | 1485.txt | 3 |
[
"The Britons got expensive tea from India.",
"Tea reached Britain from Holland.",
"The Britons were the first people in Europe who drank tea.",
"It was not until the 17th century that the Britons had tea."
] | Which of the following is true of the introduction of tea into Britain? | Tea drinking was common in China for nearly one thousand years before anyone in Europe had ever heard about tea. People in Britain were much slower in finding out what tea was like, mainly because tea was very expensive. It could not be bought in shops and even those people who could afford to have it sent from Holland did so only because it was a fashionable curiosity. Some of them were not sure how to use it. They thought it was a vegetable and tried cooking the leaves. Then they served them mixed with butter and salt. They soon discovered their mistake but many people used to spread the used tea leaves on bread and give them to their children as sandwiches.
Tea remained scarce and very expensive in England until the ships of the East India Company began to bring it direct from China early in the seventeenth century. During the next few years so much tea came into the country that the price fell and many people could afford to buy it.
At the same time people on the Continent were becoming more and more fond of tea. Until then tea had been drunk without milk in it, but one day a famous French lady named Madame de Sevigne decided to see what tea tasted like when milk was added. She found it so pleasant that she would never again drink it without milk. Because she was such a great lady her friends thought they must copy everything she did, so they also drank their tea with milk in it. Slowly this habit spread until it reached England and today only very few Britons drink tea without milk.
At first, tea was usually drunk after dinner in the evening No one ever thought of drinking tea in the afternoon until a duchess found that a cup of tea and a piece of cake at three or four o'clock stopped her gettinga sinking feelingas she called it. She invited her friends to have this new meal with her and so, tea-time was born. | 1819.txt | 1 |
[
"the history of tea drinking in Britain",
"how tea became a popular drink in Britain",
"how the Britons got the habit of drinking tea",
"how tea-time was born"
] | This passage mainly discusses . | Tea drinking was common in China for nearly one thousand years before anyone in Europe had ever heard about tea. People in Britain were much slower in finding out what tea was like, mainly because tea was very expensive. It could not be bought in shops and even those people who could afford to have it sent from Holland did so only because it was a fashionable curiosity. Some of them were not sure how to use it. They thought it was a vegetable and tried cooking the leaves. Then they served them mixed with butter and salt. They soon discovered their mistake but many people used to spread the used tea leaves on bread and give them to their children as sandwiches.
Tea remained scarce and very expensive in England until the ships of the East India Company began to bring it direct from China early in the seventeenth century. During the next few years so much tea came into the country that the price fell and many people could afford to buy it.
At the same time people on the Continent were becoming more and more fond of tea. Until then tea had been drunk without milk in it, but one day a famous French lady named Madame de Sevigne decided to see what tea tasted like when milk was added. She found it so pleasant that she would never again drink it without milk. Because she was such a great lady her friends thought they must copy everything she did, so they also drank their tea with milk in it. Slowly this habit spread until it reached England and today only very few Britons drink tea without milk.
At first, tea was usually drunk after dinner in the evening No one ever thought of drinking tea in the afternoon until a duchess found that a cup of tea and a piece of cake at three or four o'clock stopped her gettinga sinking feelingas she called it. She invited her friends to have this new meal with her and so, tea-time was born. | 1819.txt | 0 |
[
"in eighteenth century",
"in sixteenth century",
"in seventeenth century",
"in the late seventeenth century"
] | Tea became a popular drink in Britain . | Tea drinking was common in China for nearly one thousand years before anyone in Europe had ever heard about tea. People in Britain were much slower in finding out what tea was like, mainly because tea was very expensive. It could not be bought in shops and even those people who could afford to have it sent from Holland did so only because it was a fashionable curiosity. Some of them were not sure how to use it. They thought it was a vegetable and tried cooking the leaves. Then they served them mixed with butter and salt. They soon discovered their mistake but many people used to spread the used tea leaves on bread and give them to their children as sandwiches.
Tea remained scarce and very expensive in England until the ships of the East India Company began to bring it direct from China early in the seventeenth century. During the next few years so much tea came into the country that the price fell and many people could afford to buy it.
At the same time people on the Continent were becoming more and more fond of tea. Until then tea had been drunk without milk in it, but one day a famous French lady named Madame de Sevigne decided to see what tea tasted like when milk was added. She found it so pleasant that she would never again drink it without milk. Because she was such a great lady her friends thought they must copy everything she did, so they also drank their tea with milk in it. Slowly this habit spread until it reached England and today only very few Britons drink tea without milk.
At first, tea was usually drunk after dinner in the evening No one ever thought of drinking tea in the afternoon until a duchess found that a cup of tea and a piece of cake at three or four o'clock stopped her gettinga sinking feelingas she called it. She invited her friends to have this new meal with her and so, tea-time was born. | 1819.txt | 2 |
[
"it tasted like milk",
"it tasted more pleasant",
"it became a popular drink",
"Madame de Sevinge was such a lady with great social influence that people tried to copy the way she drank tea"
] | People in Europe began to drink tea with milk because . | Tea drinking was common in China for nearly one thousand years before anyone in Europe had ever heard about tea. People in Britain were much slower in finding out what tea was like, mainly because tea was very expensive. It could not be bought in shops and even those people who could afford to have it sent from Holland did so only because it was a fashionable curiosity. Some of them were not sure how to use it. They thought it was a vegetable and tried cooking the leaves. Then they served them mixed with butter and salt. They soon discovered their mistake but many people used to spread the used tea leaves on bread and give them to their children as sandwiches.
Tea remained scarce and very expensive in England until the ships of the East India Company began to bring it direct from China early in the seventeenth century. During the next few years so much tea came into the country that the price fell and many people could afford to buy it.
At the same time people on the Continent were becoming more and more fond of tea. Until then tea had been drunk without milk in it, but one day a famous French lady named Madame de Sevigne decided to see what tea tasted like when milk was added. She found it so pleasant that she would never again drink it without milk. Because she was such a great lady her friends thought they must copy everything she did, so they also drank their tea with milk in it. Slowly this habit spread until it reached England and today only very few Britons drink tea without milk.
At first, tea was usually drunk after dinner in the evening No one ever thought of drinking tea in the afternoon until a duchess found that a cup of tea and a piece of cake at three or four o'clock stopped her gettinga sinking feelingas she called it. She invited her friends to have this new meal with her and so, tea-time was born. | 1819.txt | 3 |
[
"a famous French lady",
"the ancient Chinese",
"the upper social class",
"people in Holland"
] | We may infer from the passage that the habit of drinking tea in Britain was mostly due to the influence of . | Tea drinking was common in China for nearly one thousand years before anyone in Europe had ever heard about tea. People in Britain were much slower in finding out what tea was like, mainly because tea was very expensive. It could not be bought in shops and even those people who could afford to have it sent from Holland did so only because it was a fashionable curiosity. Some of them were not sure how to use it. They thought it was a vegetable and tried cooking the leaves. Then they served them mixed with butter and salt. They soon discovered their mistake but many people used to spread the used tea leaves on bread and give them to their children as sandwiches.
Tea remained scarce and very expensive in England until the ships of the East India Company began to bring it direct from China early in the seventeenth century. During the next few years so much tea came into the country that the price fell and many people could afford to buy it.
At the same time people on the Continent were becoming more and more fond of tea. Until then tea had been drunk without milk in it, but one day a famous French lady named Madame de Sevigne decided to see what tea tasted like when milk was added. She found it so pleasant that she would never again drink it without milk. Because she was such a great lady her friends thought they must copy everything she did, so they also drank their tea with milk in it. Slowly this habit spread until it reached England and today only very few Britons drink tea without milk.
At first, tea was usually drunk after dinner in the evening No one ever thought of drinking tea in the afternoon until a duchess found that a cup of tea and a piece of cake at three or four o'clock stopped her gettinga sinking feelingas she called it. She invited her friends to have this new meal with her and so, tea-time was born. | 1819.txt | 2 |
[
"How babies differentiate between the sound of the human voice and other sounds",
"The differences between a baby's and an adult's ability to comprehend language",
"How babies perceive and respond to the human voice in their earliest stages of language development",
"The response of babies to sounds other than the human voice"
] | What does the passage mainly discuss? | Long before they can actually speak, babies pay special attention to the speech they hear around them. Within the first month of their lives, babies' responses to the sound of the human voice will be different from their responses to other sorts of auditory stimuli. They will stop crying when they hear a person talking, but not if they hear a bell or the sound of a rattle. At first, the sounds that an infant notices might be only those words that receive the heaviest emphasis and that often occur at the ends of utterances. By the time they are six or seven weeks old, babies can detect the difference between syllables pronounced with rising and falling inflections. Very soon, these differences in adult stress and intonation can influence babies' emotional states and behavior. Long before they develop actual language comprehension, babies can sense when an adult is playful or angry, attempting to initiate or terminate new behavior, and so on, merely on the basis of cues such as the rate, volume, and melody of adult speech.
Adults make it as easy as they can for babies to pick up a language by exaggerating such cues. One researcher observed babies and their mothers in six diverse cultures and found that, in all six languages, the mothers used simplified syntax, short utterances and nonsense sounds, and transformed certain sounds into baby talk. Other investigators have noted that when mothers talk to babies who are only a few months old, they exaggerate the pitch, loudness, and intensity of their words. They also exaggerate their facial expressions, hold vowels longer, and emphasize certain words.
More significant for language development than their response to general intonation is observation that tiny babies can make relatively fine distinctions between speech sounds. In other words, babies enter the world with the ability to make precisely those perceptual discriminations that are necessary if they are to acquire aural language.
Babies obviously derive pleasure from sound input, too: even as young as nine months they will listen to songs or stories, although the words themselves are beyond their understanding. For babies, language is a sensory-motor delight rather than the route to prosaic meaning that it often is for adults. | 360.txt | 2 |
[
"To contrast the reactions of babies to human and nonhuman sounds",
"To give examples of sounds that will cause a baby to cry",
"To explain how babies distinguish between different nonhuman sounds",
"To give examples of typical toys that babies do not like"
] | Why does the author mention a bell and a rattle in lines 4-5? | Long before they can actually speak, babies pay special attention to the speech they hear around them. Within the first month of their lives, babies' responses to the sound of the human voice will be different from their responses to other sorts of auditory stimuli. They will stop crying when they hear a person talking, but not if they hear a bell or the sound of a rattle. At first, the sounds that an infant notices might be only those words that receive the heaviest emphasis and that often occur at the ends of utterances. By the time they are six or seven weeks old, babies can detect the difference between syllables pronounced with rising and falling inflections. Very soon, these differences in adult stress and intonation can influence babies' emotional states and behavior. Long before they develop actual language comprehension, babies can sense when an adult is playful or angry, attempting to initiate or terminate new behavior, and so on, merely on the basis of cues such as the rate, volume, and melody of adult speech.
Adults make it as easy as they can for babies to pick up a language by exaggerating such cues. One researcher observed babies and their mothers in six diverse cultures and found that, in all six languages, the mothers used simplified syntax, short utterances and nonsense sounds, and transformed certain sounds into baby talk. Other investigators have noted that when mothers talk to babies who are only a few months old, they exaggerate the pitch, loudness, and intensity of their words. They also exaggerate their facial expressions, hold vowels longer, and emphasize certain words.
More significant for language development than their response to general intonation is observation that tiny babies can make relatively fine distinctions between speech sounds. In other words, babies enter the world with the ability to make precisely those perceptual discriminations that are necessary if they are to acquire aural language.
Babies obviously derive pleasure from sound input, too: even as young as nine months they will listen to songs or stories, although the words themselves are beyond their understanding. For babies, language is a sensory-motor delight rather than the route to prosaic meaning that it often is for adults. | 360.txt | 0 |
[
"To demonstrate how difficult it is for babies to interpret emotions",
"To illustrate that a six-week-old baby can already distinguish some language differences",
"To provide an example of ways adults speak to babies",
"To give a reason for babies' difficulty in distinguishing one adult from another"
] | Why does the author mention syllables pronounced with rising and falling inflections in lines 7-8? | Long before they can actually speak, babies pay special attention to the speech they hear around them. Within the first month of their lives, babies' responses to the sound of the human voice will be different from their responses to other sorts of auditory stimuli. They will stop crying when they hear a person talking, but not if they hear a bell or the sound of a rattle. At first, the sounds that an infant notices might be only those words that receive the heaviest emphasis and that often occur at the ends of utterances. By the time they are six or seven weeks old, babies can detect the difference between syllables pronounced with rising and falling inflections. Very soon, these differences in adult stress and intonation can influence babies' emotional states and behavior. Long before they develop actual language comprehension, babies can sense when an adult is playful or angry, attempting to initiate or terminate new behavior, and so on, merely on the basis of cues such as the rate, volume, and melody of adult speech.
Adults make it as easy as they can for babies to pick up a language by exaggerating such cues. One researcher observed babies and their mothers in six diverse cultures and found that, in all six languages, the mothers used simplified syntax, short utterances and nonsense sounds, and transformed certain sounds into baby talk. Other investigators have noted that when mothers talk to babies who are only a few months old, they exaggerate the pitch, loudness, and intensity of their words. They also exaggerate their facial expressions, hold vowels longer, and emphasize certain words.
More significant for language development than their response to general intonation is observation that tiny babies can make relatively fine distinctions between speech sounds. In other words, babies enter the world with the ability to make precisely those perceptual discriminations that are necessary if they are to acquire aural language.
Babies obviously derive pleasure from sound input, too: even as young as nine months they will listen to songs or stories, although the words themselves are beyond their understanding. For babies, language is a sensory-motor delight rather than the route to prosaic meaning that it often is for adults. | 360.txt | 1 |
[
"surrounding",
"divided",
"different",
"stimulating"
] | The word "diverse" in line 14 is closest in meaning to | Long before they can actually speak, babies pay special attention to the speech they hear around them. Within the first month of their lives, babies' responses to the sound of the human voice will be different from their responses to other sorts of auditory stimuli. They will stop crying when they hear a person talking, but not if they hear a bell or the sound of a rattle. At first, the sounds that an infant notices might be only those words that receive the heaviest emphasis and that often occur at the ends of utterances. By the time they are six or seven weeks old, babies can detect the difference between syllables pronounced with rising and falling inflections. Very soon, these differences in adult stress and intonation can influence babies' emotional states and behavior. Long before they develop actual language comprehension, babies can sense when an adult is playful or angry, attempting to initiate or terminate new behavior, and so on, merely on the basis of cues such as the rate, volume, and melody of adult speech.
Adults make it as easy as they can for babies to pick up a language by exaggerating such cues. One researcher observed babies and their mothers in six diverse cultures and found that, in all six languages, the mothers used simplified syntax, short utterances and nonsense sounds, and transformed certain sounds into baby talk. Other investigators have noted that when mothers talk to babies who are only a few months old, they exaggerate the pitch, loudness, and intensity of their words. They also exaggerate their facial expressions, hold vowels longer, and emphasize certain words.
More significant for language development than their response to general intonation is observation that tiny babies can make relatively fine distinctions between speech sounds. In other words, babies enter the world with the ability to make precisely those perceptual discriminations that are necessary if they are to acquire aural language.
Babies obviously derive pleasure from sound input, too: even as young as nine months they will listen to songs or stories, although the words themselves are beyond their understanding. For babies, language is a sensory-motor delight rather than the route to prosaic meaning that it often is for adults. | 360.txt | 2 |
[
"theorized",
"requested",
"disagreed",
"observed"
] | The word "noted" in line 17 is closest in meaning to | Long before they can actually speak, babies pay special attention to the speech they hear around them. Within the first month of their lives, babies' responses to the sound of the human voice will be different from their responses to other sorts of auditory stimuli. They will stop crying when they hear a person talking, but not if they hear a bell or the sound of a rattle. At first, the sounds that an infant notices might be only those words that receive the heaviest emphasis and that often occur at the ends of utterances. By the time they are six or seven weeks old, babies can detect the difference between syllables pronounced with rising and falling inflections. Very soon, these differences in adult stress and intonation can influence babies' emotional states and behavior. Long before they develop actual language comprehension, babies can sense when an adult is playful or angry, attempting to initiate or terminate new behavior, and so on, merely on the basis of cues such as the rate, volume, and melody of adult speech.
Adults make it as easy as they can for babies to pick up a language by exaggerating such cues. One researcher observed babies and their mothers in six diverse cultures and found that, in all six languages, the mothers used simplified syntax, short utterances and nonsense sounds, and transformed certain sounds into baby talk. Other investigators have noted that when mothers talk to babies who are only a few months old, they exaggerate the pitch, loudness, and intensity of their words. They also exaggerate their facial expressions, hold vowels longer, and emphasize certain words.
More significant for language development than their response to general intonation is observation that tiny babies can make relatively fine distinctions between speech sounds. In other words, babies enter the world with the ability to make precisely those perceptual discriminations that are necessary if they are to acquire aural language.
Babies obviously derive pleasure from sound input, too: even as young as nine months they will listen to songs or stories, although the words themselves are beyond their understanding. For babies, language is a sensory-motor delight rather than the route to prosaic meaning that it often is for adults. | 360.txt | 3 |
[
"mothers",
"investigators",
"babies",
"words"
] | The word "They" in line 18 refers to | Long before they can actually speak, babies pay special attention to the speech they hear around them. Within the first month of their lives, babies' responses to the sound of the human voice will be different from their responses to other sorts of auditory stimuli. They will stop crying when they hear a person talking, but not if they hear a bell or the sound of a rattle. At first, the sounds that an infant notices might be only those words that receive the heaviest emphasis and that often occur at the ends of utterances. By the time they are six or seven weeks old, babies can detect the difference between syllables pronounced with rising and falling inflections. Very soon, these differences in adult stress and intonation can influence babies' emotional states and behavior. Long before they develop actual language comprehension, babies can sense when an adult is playful or angry, attempting to initiate or terminate new behavior, and so on, merely on the basis of cues such as the rate, volume, and melody of adult speech.
Adults make it as easy as they can for babies to pick up a language by exaggerating such cues. One researcher observed babies and their mothers in six diverse cultures and found that, in all six languages, the mothers used simplified syntax, short utterances and nonsense sounds, and transformed certain sounds into baby talk. Other investigators have noted that when mothers talk to babies who are only a few months old, they exaggerate the pitch, loudness, and intensity of their words. They also exaggerate their facial expressions, hold vowels longer, and emphasize certain words.
More significant for language development than their response to general intonation is observation that tiny babies can make relatively fine distinctions between speech sounds. In other words, babies enter the world with the ability to make precisely those perceptual discriminations that are necessary if they are to acquire aural language.
Babies obviously derive pleasure from sound input, too: even as young as nine months they will listen to songs or stories, although the words themselves are beyond their understanding. For babies, language is a sensory-motor delight rather than the route to prosaic meaning that it often is for adults. | 360.txt | 0 |
[
"giving all words equal emphasis",
"speaking with shorter sentences",
"speaking more loudly than normal",
"using meaningless sounds"
] | The passage mentions all of the following as ways adults modify their speech when talking to babies EXCEPT | Long before they can actually speak, babies pay special attention to the speech they hear around them. Within the first month of their lives, babies' responses to the sound of the human voice will be different from their responses to other sorts of auditory stimuli. They will stop crying when they hear a person talking, but not if they hear a bell or the sound of a rattle. At first, the sounds that an infant notices might be only those words that receive the heaviest emphasis and that often occur at the ends of utterances. By the time they are six or seven weeks old, babies can detect the difference between syllables pronounced with rising and falling inflections. Very soon, these differences in adult stress and intonation can influence babies' emotional states and behavior. Long before they develop actual language comprehension, babies can sense when an adult is playful or angry, attempting to initiate or terminate new behavior, and so on, merely on the basis of cues such as the rate, volume, and melody of adult speech.
Adults make it as easy as they can for babies to pick up a language by exaggerating such cues. One researcher observed babies and their mothers in six diverse cultures and found that, in all six languages, the mothers used simplified syntax, short utterances and nonsense sounds, and transformed certain sounds into baby talk. Other investigators have noted that when mothers talk to babies who are only a few months old, they exaggerate the pitch, loudness, and intensity of their words. They also exaggerate their facial expressions, hold vowels longer, and emphasize certain words.
More significant for language development than their response to general intonation is observation that tiny babies can make relatively fine distinctions between speech sounds. In other words, babies enter the world with the ability to make precisely those perceptual discriminations that are necessary if they are to acquire aural language.
Babies obviously derive pleasure from sound input, too: even as young as nine months they will listen to songs or stories, although the words themselves are beyond their understanding. For babies, language is a sensory-motor delight rather than the route to prosaic meaning that it often is for adults. | 360.txt | 0 |
[
"stress",
"repeat",
"explain",
"leave out"
] | The word "emphasize" in line 19 is closest in meaning to | Long before they can actually speak, babies pay special attention to the speech they hear around them. Within the first month of their lives, babies' responses to the sound of the human voice will be different from their responses to other sorts of auditory stimuli. They will stop crying when they hear a person talking, but not if they hear a bell or the sound of a rattle. At first, the sounds that an infant notices might be only those words that receive the heaviest emphasis and that often occur at the ends of utterances. By the time they are six or seven weeks old, babies can detect the difference between syllables pronounced with rising and falling inflections. Very soon, these differences in adult stress and intonation can influence babies' emotional states and behavior. Long before they develop actual language comprehension, babies can sense when an adult is playful or angry, attempting to initiate or terminate new behavior, and so on, merely on the basis of cues such as the rate, volume, and melody of adult speech.
Adults make it as easy as they can for babies to pick up a language by exaggerating such cues. One researcher observed babies and their mothers in six diverse cultures and found that, in all six languages, the mothers used simplified syntax, short utterances and nonsense sounds, and transformed certain sounds into baby talk. Other investigators have noted that when mothers talk to babies who are only a few months old, they exaggerate the pitch, loudness, and intensity of their words. They also exaggerate their facial expressions, hold vowels longer, and emphasize certain words.
More significant for language development than their response to general intonation is observation that tiny babies can make relatively fine distinctions between speech sounds. In other words, babies enter the world with the ability to make precisely those perceptual discriminations that are necessary if they are to acquire aural language.
Babies obviously derive pleasure from sound input, too: even as young as nine months they will listen to songs or stories, although the words themselves are beyond their understanding. For babies, language is a sensory-motor delight rather than the route to prosaic meaning that it often is for adults. | 360.txt | 0 |
[
"Babies who are exposed to more than one language can speak earlier than babies exposed to a single language.",
"Mothers from different cultures speak to their babies in similar ways.",
"Babies ignore facial expressions in comprehending aural language.",
"The mothers observed by the researchers were consciously teaching their babies to speak."
] | Which of the following can be inferred about the findings described in paragraph 2? | Long before they can actually speak, babies pay special attention to the speech they hear around them. Within the first month of their lives, babies' responses to the sound of the human voice will be different from their responses to other sorts of auditory stimuli. They will stop crying when they hear a person talking, but not if they hear a bell or the sound of a rattle. At first, the sounds that an infant notices might be only those words that receive the heaviest emphasis and that often occur at the ends of utterances. By the time they are six or seven weeks old, babies can detect the difference between syllables pronounced with rising and falling inflections. Very soon, these differences in adult stress and intonation can influence babies' emotional states and behavior. Long before they develop actual language comprehension, babies can sense when an adult is playful or angry, attempting to initiate or terminate new behavior, and so on, merely on the basis of cues such as the rate, volume, and melody of adult speech.
Adults make it as easy as they can for babies to pick up a language by exaggerating such cues. One researcher observed babies and their mothers in six diverse cultures and found that, in all six languages, the mothers used simplified syntax, short utterances and nonsense sounds, and transformed certain sounds into baby talk. Other investigators have noted that when mothers talk to babies who are only a few months old, they exaggerate the pitch, loudness, and intensity of their words. They also exaggerate their facial expressions, hold vowels longer, and emphasize certain words.
More significant for language development than their response to general intonation is observation that tiny babies can make relatively fine distinctions between speech sounds. In other words, babies enter the world with the ability to make precisely those perceptual discriminations that are necessary if they are to acquire aural language.
Babies obviously derive pleasure from sound input, too: even as young as nine months they will listen to songs or stories, although the words themselves are beyond their understanding. For babies, language is a sensory-motor delight rather than the route to prosaic meaning that it often is for adults. | 360.txt | 1 |
[
"Babies begin to understand words in songs.",
"Babies exaggerate their own sounds and expressions.",
"Babies are more sensitive to sounds than are adults.",
"Babies notice even minor differences between speech sounds."
] | What point does the author make to illustrate that babies are born with the ability to acquire language? | Long before they can actually speak, babies pay special attention to the speech they hear around them. Within the first month of their lives, babies' responses to the sound of the human voice will be different from their responses to other sorts of auditory stimuli. They will stop crying when they hear a person talking, but not if they hear a bell or the sound of a rattle. At first, the sounds that an infant notices might be only those words that receive the heaviest emphasis and that often occur at the ends of utterances. By the time they are six or seven weeks old, babies can detect the difference between syllables pronounced with rising and falling inflections. Very soon, these differences in adult stress and intonation can influence babies' emotional states and behavior. Long before they develop actual language comprehension, babies can sense when an adult is playful or angry, attempting to initiate or terminate new behavior, and so on, merely on the basis of cues such as the rate, volume, and melody of adult speech.
Adults make it as easy as they can for babies to pick up a language by exaggerating such cues. One researcher observed babies and their mothers in six diverse cultures and found that, in all six languages, the mothers used simplified syntax, short utterances and nonsense sounds, and transformed certain sounds into baby talk. Other investigators have noted that when mothers talk to babies who are only a few months old, they exaggerate the pitch, loudness, and intensity of their words. They also exaggerate their facial expressions, hold vowels longer, and emphasize certain words.
More significant for language development than their response to general intonation is observation that tiny babies can make relatively fine distinctions between speech sounds. In other words, babies enter the world with the ability to make precisely those perceptual discriminations that are necessary if they are to acquire aural language.
Babies obviously derive pleasure from sound input, too: even as young as nine months they will listen to songs or stories, although the words themselves are beyond their understanding. For babies, language is a sensory-motor delight rather than the route to prosaic meaning that it often is for adults. | 360.txt | 3 |
[
"They understand the rhythm.",
"They enjoy the sound.",
"They can remember them easily.",
"They focus on the meaning of their parents' words."
] | According to the author, why do babies listen to songs and stories, even though they cannot understand them? | Long before they can actually speak, babies pay special attention to the speech they hear around them. Within the first month of their lives, babies' responses to the sound of the human voice will be different from their responses to other sorts of auditory stimuli. They will stop crying when they hear a person talking, but not if they hear a bell or the sound of a rattle. At first, the sounds that an infant notices might be only those words that receive the heaviest emphasis and that often occur at the ends of utterances. By the time they are six or seven weeks old, babies can detect the difference between syllables pronounced with rising and falling inflections. Very soon, these differences in adult stress and intonation can influence babies' emotional states and behavior. Long before they develop actual language comprehension, babies can sense when an adult is playful or angry, attempting to initiate or terminate new behavior, and so on, merely on the basis of cues such as the rate, volume, and melody of adult speech.
Adults make it as easy as they can for babies to pick up a language by exaggerating such cues. One researcher observed babies and their mothers in six diverse cultures and found that, in all six languages, the mothers used simplified syntax, short utterances and nonsense sounds, and transformed certain sounds into baby talk. Other investigators have noted that when mothers talk to babies who are only a few months old, they exaggerate the pitch, loudness, and intensity of their words. They also exaggerate their facial expressions, hold vowels longer, and emphasize certain words.
More significant for language development than their response to general intonation is observation that tiny babies can make relatively fine distinctions between speech sounds. In other words, babies enter the world with the ability to make precisely those perceptual discriminations that are necessary if they are to acquire aural language.
Babies obviously derive pleasure from sound input, too: even as young as nine months they will listen to songs or stories, although the words themselves are beyond their understanding. For babies, language is a sensory-motor delight rather than the route to prosaic meaning that it often is for adults. | 360.txt | 1 |
[
"a religious activity celebrating the open-innovation movement.",
"the anti-establishment movement.",
"a movement advocating the innovation.",
"an activity calling for open innovation."
] | "Summer of Love" is probably _ | Berkeley seems like a fitting place to find the godfather of the open-innovation movement basking in glory. The Californian village was, after all, at the very heart of the anti-establishment movement of the 1960s and has spawned plenty of radical thinkers. One of them, Henry Chesbrough, a business professor at the University of California at Berkeley, observes with a smile that "this is the 40th anniversary of the Summer of Love."
Mr Chesbrough's two books "Open Innovation" and "Open Business Models" have popularised the notion of looking for bright ideas outside of an organisation. As the concept of open innovation has become ever more fashionable, the corporate R&D lab has become decreasingly relevant. Most ideas don't come from there.
To see why travel to Cincinnati, Ohio-which is about as far removed culturally from Berkeley as one can get in America. The conservative mid-western city is home to P&G, historically one of the most traditional firms in America. For decades, the company that brought the world Ivory soap, Crest toothpaste and Ariel detergent had a closed innovation process, centred around its own secretive R&D operations.
No longer. P&G has radically altered the way it comes up with new ideas and products. It now welcomes and works with universities, suppliers and outside inventors. It also offers them a share in the rewards. In less than a decade, P&G has increased the proportion of new-product ideas originating from outside of the firm from less than a fifth to around half. That has boosted innovation and, says its boss, Mr Lafley, is the main reason why P&G has been able to grow at 6% a year between 2001 and 2006, tripling annual profits to $8.6 billion. The company now has a market capitalisation of over $200 billion.
IBM is another iconic firm that has jumped on the open-innovation bandwagon. The once-secretive company has done a sharp U-turn and embraced Linux, an open-source software language. IBM now gushes about being part of the "open-innovation community", yielding hundreds of software patents to the "creative commons" rather than registering them for itself. However, it also continues to take out patents at a record pace in other areas, such as advanced materials, and in the process racks up some $1 billion a year in licensing fees.
Since an army of programmers around the world work on developing Linux essentially at no cost, IBM now has an extremely cheap and robust operating system. It makes money by providing its clients with services that support the use of Linux-and charging them for it. Using open-source software saves IBM a whopping $400m a year, according to Paul Horn, until recently the firm's head of research. The company is so committed to openness that it now carries out occasional "online jam sessions" during which tens of thousands of its employees exchange ideas in a mass form of brainstorming.
Mr Chesbrough, of course, heartily approves. He gives dozens of other examples of firms doing similar things, ranging from Clorax, a household products firm to Air Products, an industrial gases company. Mr Chesbrough reckons that "IBM and P&G have timed their shift to a high-volume open-business model very well" and that if their competitors do not do the same they will be in trouble. | 3548.txt | 1 |
[
"$ 2.87 billion.",
"$ 1.075 billion.",
"$ 2.15 billion.",
"$ 4.3 billion."
] | According to the passage, the annual profits of P&G in 2001 was about _ | Berkeley seems like a fitting place to find the godfather of the open-innovation movement basking in glory. The Californian village was, after all, at the very heart of the anti-establishment movement of the 1960s and has spawned plenty of radical thinkers. One of them, Henry Chesbrough, a business professor at the University of California at Berkeley, observes with a smile that "this is the 40th anniversary of the Summer of Love."
Mr Chesbrough's two books "Open Innovation" and "Open Business Models" have popularised the notion of looking for bright ideas outside of an organisation. As the concept of open innovation has become ever more fashionable, the corporate R&D lab has become decreasingly relevant. Most ideas don't come from there.
To see why travel to Cincinnati, Ohio-which is about as far removed culturally from Berkeley as one can get in America. The conservative mid-western city is home to P&G, historically one of the most traditional firms in America. For decades, the company that brought the world Ivory soap, Crest toothpaste and Ariel detergent had a closed innovation process, centred around its own secretive R&D operations.
No longer. P&G has radically altered the way it comes up with new ideas and products. It now welcomes and works with universities, suppliers and outside inventors. It also offers them a share in the rewards. In less than a decade, P&G has increased the proportion of new-product ideas originating from outside of the firm from less than a fifth to around half. That has boosted innovation and, says its boss, Mr Lafley, is the main reason why P&G has been able to grow at 6% a year between 2001 and 2006, tripling annual profits to $8.6 billion. The company now has a market capitalisation of over $200 billion.
IBM is another iconic firm that has jumped on the open-innovation bandwagon. The once-secretive company has done a sharp U-turn and embraced Linux, an open-source software language. IBM now gushes about being part of the "open-innovation community", yielding hundreds of software patents to the "creative commons" rather than registering them for itself. However, it also continues to take out patents at a record pace in other areas, such as advanced materials, and in the process racks up some $1 billion a year in licensing fees.
Since an army of programmers around the world work on developing Linux essentially at no cost, IBM now has an extremely cheap and robust operating system. It makes money by providing its clients with services that support the use of Linux-and charging them for it. Using open-source software saves IBM a whopping $400m a year, according to Paul Horn, until recently the firm's head of research. The company is so committed to openness that it now carries out occasional "online jam sessions" during which tens of thousands of its employees exchange ideas in a mass form of brainstorming.
Mr Chesbrough, of course, heartily approves. He gives dozens of other examples of firms doing similar things, ranging from Clorax, a household products firm to Air Products, an industrial gases company. Mr Chesbrough reckons that "IBM and P&G have timed their shift to a high-volume open-business model very well" and that if their competitors do not do the same they will be in trouble. | 3548.txt | 0 |
[
"it embraced an open-source software language that is widely supported by the \"creative commons\".",
"it endows people inside and outside the company with the access to the software patents it owns.",
"it encourages an extensive public involvement in the development of new software for the company.",
"it indeed whops its cost and gains considerable profit from using Linux."
] | IBM now gushes about being part of the "open-innovation community" in that _ | Berkeley seems like a fitting place to find the godfather of the open-innovation movement basking in glory. The Californian village was, after all, at the very heart of the anti-establishment movement of the 1960s and has spawned plenty of radical thinkers. One of them, Henry Chesbrough, a business professor at the University of California at Berkeley, observes with a smile that "this is the 40th anniversary of the Summer of Love."
Mr Chesbrough's two books "Open Innovation" and "Open Business Models" have popularised the notion of looking for bright ideas outside of an organisation. As the concept of open innovation has become ever more fashionable, the corporate R&D lab has become decreasingly relevant. Most ideas don't come from there.
To see why travel to Cincinnati, Ohio-which is about as far removed culturally from Berkeley as one can get in America. The conservative mid-western city is home to P&G, historically one of the most traditional firms in America. For decades, the company that brought the world Ivory soap, Crest toothpaste and Ariel detergent had a closed innovation process, centred around its own secretive R&D operations.
No longer. P&G has radically altered the way it comes up with new ideas and products. It now welcomes and works with universities, suppliers and outside inventors. It also offers them a share in the rewards. In less than a decade, P&G has increased the proportion of new-product ideas originating from outside of the firm from less than a fifth to around half. That has boosted innovation and, says its boss, Mr Lafley, is the main reason why P&G has been able to grow at 6% a year between 2001 and 2006, tripling annual profits to $8.6 billion. The company now has a market capitalisation of over $200 billion.
IBM is another iconic firm that has jumped on the open-innovation bandwagon. The once-secretive company has done a sharp U-turn and embraced Linux, an open-source software language. IBM now gushes about being part of the "open-innovation community", yielding hundreds of software patents to the "creative commons" rather than registering them for itself. However, it also continues to take out patents at a record pace in other areas, such as advanced materials, and in the process racks up some $1 billion a year in licensing fees.
Since an army of programmers around the world work on developing Linux essentially at no cost, IBM now has an extremely cheap and robust operating system. It makes money by providing its clients with services that support the use of Linux-and charging them for it. Using open-source software saves IBM a whopping $400m a year, according to Paul Horn, until recently the firm's head of research. The company is so committed to openness that it now carries out occasional "online jam sessions" during which tens of thousands of its employees exchange ideas in a mass form of brainstorming.
Mr Chesbrough, of course, heartily approves. He gives dozens of other examples of firms doing similar things, ranging from Clorax, a household products firm to Air Products, an industrial gases company. Mr Chesbrough reckons that "IBM and P&G have timed their shift to a high-volume open-business model very well" and that if their competitors do not do the same they will be in trouble. | 3548.txt | 2 |
[
"its progrmmers around the world develop Linux essentially at no cost.",
"it makes money by providing its client with toll services supporting the operating system instead.",
"it could save a lot of money by using open-source software.",
"it has shifted its R&D outside, which save a lot of money."
] | IBM could provide its clients with cheap operating system because _ | Berkeley seems like a fitting place to find the godfather of the open-innovation movement basking in glory. The Californian village was, after all, at the very heart of the anti-establishment movement of the 1960s and has spawned plenty of radical thinkers. One of them, Henry Chesbrough, a business professor at the University of California at Berkeley, observes with a smile that "this is the 40th anniversary of the Summer of Love."
Mr Chesbrough's two books "Open Innovation" and "Open Business Models" have popularised the notion of looking for bright ideas outside of an organisation. As the concept of open innovation has become ever more fashionable, the corporate R&D lab has become decreasingly relevant. Most ideas don't come from there.
To see why travel to Cincinnati, Ohio-which is about as far removed culturally from Berkeley as one can get in America. The conservative mid-western city is home to P&G, historically one of the most traditional firms in America. For decades, the company that brought the world Ivory soap, Crest toothpaste and Ariel detergent had a closed innovation process, centred around its own secretive R&D operations.
No longer. P&G has radically altered the way it comes up with new ideas and products. It now welcomes and works with universities, suppliers and outside inventors. It also offers them a share in the rewards. In less than a decade, P&G has increased the proportion of new-product ideas originating from outside of the firm from less than a fifth to around half. That has boosted innovation and, says its boss, Mr Lafley, is the main reason why P&G has been able to grow at 6% a year between 2001 and 2006, tripling annual profits to $8.6 billion. The company now has a market capitalisation of over $200 billion.
IBM is another iconic firm that has jumped on the open-innovation bandwagon. The once-secretive company has done a sharp U-turn and embraced Linux, an open-source software language. IBM now gushes about being part of the "open-innovation community", yielding hundreds of software patents to the "creative commons" rather than registering them for itself. However, it also continues to take out patents at a record pace in other areas, such as advanced materials, and in the process racks up some $1 billion a year in licensing fees.
Since an army of programmers around the world work on developing Linux essentially at no cost, IBM now has an extremely cheap and robust operating system. It makes money by providing its clients with services that support the use of Linux-and charging them for it. Using open-source software saves IBM a whopping $400m a year, according to Paul Horn, until recently the firm's head of research. The company is so committed to openness that it now carries out occasional "online jam sessions" during which tens of thousands of its employees exchange ideas in a mass form of brainstorming.
Mr Chesbrough, of course, heartily approves. He gives dozens of other examples of firms doing similar things, ranging from Clorax, a household products firm to Air Products, an industrial gases company. Mr Chesbrough reckons that "IBM and P&G have timed their shift to a high-volume open-business model very well" and that if their competitors do not do the same they will be in trouble. | 3548.txt | 1 |
[
"their competitors will would lose their market share gradually which would be taken by R&D.",
"they fail to adopt the new model of open business which would pave the way to constant business success.",
"they do not recognize the best time to shift their backward business model.",
"they will be sifted out by the market as a result of their conservativeness."
] | According to the last paragrph, if their competitors do not do the same they will be in trouble because _ | Berkeley seems like a fitting place to find the godfather of the open-innovation movement basking in glory. The Californian village was, after all, at the very heart of the anti-establishment movement of the 1960s and has spawned plenty of radical thinkers. One of them, Henry Chesbrough, a business professor at the University of California at Berkeley, observes with a smile that "this is the 40th anniversary of the Summer of Love."
Mr Chesbrough's two books "Open Innovation" and "Open Business Models" have popularised the notion of looking for bright ideas outside of an organisation. As the concept of open innovation has become ever more fashionable, the corporate R&D lab has become decreasingly relevant. Most ideas don't come from there.
To see why travel to Cincinnati, Ohio-which is about as far removed culturally from Berkeley as one can get in America. The conservative mid-western city is home to P&G, historically one of the most traditional firms in America. For decades, the company that brought the world Ivory soap, Crest toothpaste and Ariel detergent had a closed innovation process, centred around its own secretive R&D operations.
No longer. P&G has radically altered the way it comes up with new ideas and products. It now welcomes and works with universities, suppliers and outside inventors. It also offers them a share in the rewards. In less than a decade, P&G has increased the proportion of new-product ideas originating from outside of the firm from less than a fifth to around half. That has boosted innovation and, says its boss, Mr Lafley, is the main reason why P&G has been able to grow at 6% a year between 2001 and 2006, tripling annual profits to $8.6 billion. The company now has a market capitalisation of over $200 billion.
IBM is another iconic firm that has jumped on the open-innovation bandwagon. The once-secretive company has done a sharp U-turn and embraced Linux, an open-source software language. IBM now gushes about being part of the "open-innovation community", yielding hundreds of software patents to the "creative commons" rather than registering them for itself. However, it also continues to take out patents at a record pace in other areas, such as advanced materials, and in the process racks up some $1 billion a year in licensing fees.
Since an army of programmers around the world work on developing Linux essentially at no cost, IBM now has an extremely cheap and robust operating system. It makes money by providing its clients with services that support the use of Linux-and charging them for it. Using open-source software saves IBM a whopping $400m a year, according to Paul Horn, until recently the firm's head of research. The company is so committed to openness that it now carries out occasional "online jam sessions" during which tens of thousands of its employees exchange ideas in a mass form of brainstorming.
Mr Chesbrough, of course, heartily approves. He gives dozens of other examples of firms doing similar things, ranging from Clorax, a household products firm to Air Products, an industrial gases company. Mr Chesbrough reckons that "IBM and P&G have timed their shift to a high-volume open-business model very well" and that if their competitors do not do the same they will be in trouble. | 3548.txt | 3 |
[
"How patterns in rock layers have been used to construct theories about the climate of the Proterozoic age",
"What some rare fossils indicate about glacial conditions during the late Proterozoic age",
"The varying characteristics of Proterozoic glacial varves in different parts of the world",
"The number of glacial episodes that the Earth has experienced since the Proterozoic age"
] | Which of the following does the passage mainly discuss? | There are only a few clues in the rock record about climate in the Proterozoic eon. Much of our information about climate in the more recent periods of geologic history comes from the fossil record, because we have a reasonably good understanding of the types of environment in which many fossil organisms flourished. The scarce fossils of the Proterozoic, mostly single-celled bacteria, provide little evidence in this regard. However, the rocks themselves do include the earliest evidence for glaciation, probably a global ice age.
The inference that some types of sedimentary rocks are the result of glacial activity is based on the principle of uniformitarianism, which posits that natural processes now at work on and within the Earth operated in the same manner in the distant past. The deposits associated with present-day glaciers have been well studied, and some of their characteristics are quite distinctive. In 2.3-billion-year-old rocks in Canada near Lake Huron (dating from the early part of the Proterozoic age), there are thin laminae of fine-grained sediments that resemble varves, the annual layers of sediment deposited in glacial lakes. Typically, present-day varves show two-layered annual cycle, one layer corresponding to the rapid ice melting and sediment transport of the summer season, and the other, finer-grained, layer corresponding to slower winter deposition. Although it is not easy to discern such details in the Proterozoic examples, they are almost certainly glacial varves. These fine-grained, layered sediments even contain occasional large pebbles or "dropstones," a characteristic feature of glacial environments where coarse material is sometimes carried on floating ice and dropped far from its source, into otherwise very fine grained sediment. Glacial sediments of about the same age as those in Canada have been found in other parts of North America and in Africa, India, and Europe. This indicates that the glaciation was global, and that for a period of time in the early Proterozoic the Earth was gripped in an ice age.
Following the early Proterozoic glaciation, however, the climate appears to have been fairly benign for a very long time. There is no evidence for glaciation for the next 1.5 billion years or so. Then, suddenly, the rock record indicates a series of glacial episodes between about 850 and 600 million year ago, near the end of the Proterozoic eon. | 406.txt | 0 |
[
"highly regarded because it preserves the remains of many kinds of organisms",
"less informative than the fossil record of more recent periods",
"very difficult to interpret due to damage from bacteria",
"more useful to researchers than otheraspects of the rock record"
] | According to the passage , the fossil record of the Proterozoic eon is | There are only a few clues in the rock record about climate in the Proterozoic eon. Much of our information about climate in the more recent periods of geologic history comes from the fossil record, because we have a reasonably good understanding of the types of environment in which many fossil organisms flourished. The scarce fossils of the Proterozoic, mostly single-celled bacteria, provide little evidence in this regard. However, the rocks themselves do include the earliest evidence for glaciation, probably a global ice age.
The inference that some types of sedimentary rocks are the result of glacial activity is based on the principle of uniformitarianism, which posits that natural processes now at work on and within the Earth operated in the same manner in the distant past. The deposits associated with present-day glaciers have been well studied, and some of their characteristics are quite distinctive. In 2.3-billion-year-old rocks in Canada near Lake Huron (dating from the early part of the Proterozoic age), there are thin laminae of fine-grained sediments that resemble varves, the annual layers of sediment deposited in glacial lakes. Typically, present-day varves show two-layered annual cycle, one layer corresponding to the rapid ice melting and sediment transport of the summer season, and the other, finer-grained, layer corresponding to slower winter deposition. Although it is not easy to discern such details in the Proterozoic examples, they are almost certainly glacial varves. These fine-grained, layered sediments even contain occasional large pebbles or "dropstones," a characteristic feature of glacial environments where coarse material is sometimes carried on floating ice and dropped far from its source, into otherwise very fine grained sediment. Glacial sediments of about the same age as those in Canada have been found in other parts of North America and in Africa, India, and Europe. This indicates that the glaciation was global, and that for a period of time in the early Proterozoic the Earth was gripped in an ice age.
Following the early Proterozoic glaciation, however, the climate appears to have been fairly benign for a very long time. There is no evidence for glaciation for the next 1.5 billion years or so. Then, suddenly, the rock record indicates a series of glacial episodes between about 850 and 600 million year ago, near the end of the Proterozoic eon. | 406.txt | 1 |
[
"ancient",
"tiny",
"available",
"rare"
] | The word "scarce" in line 4 is closest in meaning to | There are only a few clues in the rock record about climate in the Proterozoic eon. Much of our information about climate in the more recent periods of geologic history comes from the fossil record, because we have a reasonably good understanding of the types of environment in which many fossil organisms flourished. The scarce fossils of the Proterozoic, mostly single-celled bacteria, provide little evidence in this regard. However, the rocks themselves do include the earliest evidence for glaciation, probably a global ice age.
The inference that some types of sedimentary rocks are the result of glacial activity is based on the principle of uniformitarianism, which posits that natural processes now at work on and within the Earth operated in the same manner in the distant past. The deposits associated with present-day glaciers have been well studied, and some of their characteristics are quite distinctive. In 2.3-billion-year-old rocks in Canada near Lake Huron (dating from the early part of the Proterozoic age), there are thin laminae of fine-grained sediments that resemble varves, the annual layers of sediment deposited in glacial lakes. Typically, present-day varves show two-layered annual cycle, one layer corresponding to the rapid ice melting and sediment transport of the summer season, and the other, finer-grained, layer corresponding to slower winter deposition. Although it is not easy to discern such details in the Proterozoic examples, they are almost certainly glacial varves. These fine-grained, layered sediments even contain occasional large pebbles or "dropstones," a characteristic feature of glacial environments where coarse material is sometimes carried on floating ice and dropped far from its source, into otherwise very fine grained sediment. Glacial sediments of about the same age as those in Canada have been found in other parts of North America and in Africa, India, and Europe. This indicates that the glaciation was global, and that for a period of time in the early Proterozoic the Earth was gripped in an ice age.
Following the early Proterozoic glaciation, however, the climate appears to have been fairly benign for a very long time. There is no evidence for glaciation for the next 1.5 billion years or so. Then, suddenly, the rock record indicates a series of glacial episodes between about 850 and 600 million year ago, near the end of the Proterozoic eon. | 406.txt | 3 |
[
"similar conditions produce similar rock formations",
"rock layers in a given region remain undisturbed over time",
"different kinds of sedimentary rocks may have similar origins",
"each continent has its own distinctive pattern of sediment layers"
] | It can be inferred from the passage that the principle of uniformitarianism indicates that | There are only a few clues in the rock record about climate in the Proterozoic eon. Much of our information about climate in the more recent periods of geologic history comes from the fossil record, because we have a reasonably good understanding of the types of environment in which many fossil organisms flourished. The scarce fossils of the Proterozoic, mostly single-celled bacteria, provide little evidence in this regard. However, the rocks themselves do include the earliest evidence for glaciation, probably a global ice age.
The inference that some types of sedimentary rocks are the result of glacial activity is based on the principle of uniformitarianism, which posits that natural processes now at work on and within the Earth operated in the same manner in the distant past. The deposits associated with present-day glaciers have been well studied, and some of their characteristics are quite distinctive. In 2.3-billion-year-old rocks in Canada near Lake Huron (dating from the early part of the Proterozoic age), there are thin laminae of fine-grained sediments that resemble varves, the annual layers of sediment deposited in glacial lakes. Typically, present-day varves show two-layered annual cycle, one layer corresponding to the rapid ice melting and sediment transport of the summer season, and the other, finer-grained, layer corresponding to slower winter deposition. Although it is not easy to discern such details in the Proterozoic examples, they are almost certainly glacial varves. These fine-grained, layered sediments even contain occasional large pebbles or "dropstones," a characteristic feature of glacial environments where coarse material is sometimes carried on floating ice and dropped far from its source, into otherwise very fine grained sediment. Glacial sediments of about the same age as those in Canada have been found in other parts of North America and in Africa, India, and Europe. This indicates that the glaciation was global, and that for a period of time in the early Proterozoic the Earth was gripped in an ice age.
Following the early Proterozoic glaciation, however, the climate appears to have been fairly benign for a very long time. There is no evidence for glaciation for the next 1.5 billion years or so. Then, suddenly, the rock record indicates a series of glacial episodes between about 850 and 600 million year ago, near the end of the Proterozoic eon. | 406.txt | 0 |
[
"result from",
"penetrate",
"look like",
"replace have similar origins"
] | The word "resemble" in line 14 is closest in meaning to | There are only a few clues in the rock record about climate in the Proterozoic eon. Much of our information about climate in the more recent periods of geologic history comes from the fossil record, because we have a reasonably good understanding of the types of environment in which many fossil organisms flourished. The scarce fossils of the Proterozoic, mostly single-celled bacteria, provide little evidence in this regard. However, the rocks themselves do include the earliest evidence for glaciation, probably a global ice age.
The inference that some types of sedimentary rocks are the result of glacial activity is based on the principle of uniformitarianism, which posits that natural processes now at work on and within the Earth operated in the same manner in the distant past. The deposits associated with present-day glaciers have been well studied, and some of their characteristics are quite distinctive. In 2.3-billion-year-old rocks in Canada near Lake Huron (dating from the early part of the Proterozoic age), there are thin laminae of fine-grained sediments that resemble varves, the annual layers of sediment deposited in glacial lakes. Typically, present-day varves show two-layered annual cycle, one layer corresponding to the rapid ice melting and sediment transport of the summer season, and the other, finer-grained, layer corresponding to slower winter deposition. Although it is not easy to discern such details in the Proterozoic examples, they are almost certainly glacial varves. These fine-grained, layered sediments even contain occasional large pebbles or "dropstones," a characteristic feature of glacial environments where coarse material is sometimes carried on floating ice and dropped far from its source, into otherwise very fine grained sediment. Glacial sediments of about the same age as those in Canada have been found in other parts of North America and in Africa, India, and Europe. This indicates that the glaciation was global, and that for a period of time in the early Proterozoic the Earth was gripped in an ice age.
Following the early Proterozoic glaciation, however, the climate appears to have been fairly benign for a very long time. There is no evidence for glaciation for the next 1.5 billion years or so. Then, suddenly, the rock record indicates a series of glacial episodes between about 850 and 600 million year ago, near the end of the Proterozoic eon. | 406.txt | 2 |
[
"fossilized bacteria",
"pieces of ancient dropstones",
"a combination of ancient and recent sediments",
"annual cycles of sediment transport and deposition"
] | According to the passage , the layers in varves are primarily formed by | There are only a few clues in the rock record about climate in the Proterozoic eon. Much of our information about climate in the more recent periods of geologic history comes from the fossil record, because we have a reasonably good understanding of the types of environment in which many fossil organisms flourished. The scarce fossils of the Proterozoic, mostly single-celled bacteria, provide little evidence in this regard. However, the rocks themselves do include the earliest evidence for glaciation, probably a global ice age.
The inference that some types of sedimentary rocks are the result of glacial activity is based on the principle of uniformitarianism, which posits that natural processes now at work on and within the Earth operated in the same manner in the distant past. The deposits associated with present-day glaciers have been well studied, and some of their characteristics are quite distinctive. In 2.3-billion-year-old rocks in Canada near Lake Huron (dating from the early part of the Proterozoic age), there are thin laminae of fine-grained sediments that resemble varves, the annual layers of sediment deposited in glacial lakes. Typically, present-day varves show two-layered annual cycle, one layer corresponding to the rapid ice melting and sediment transport of the summer season, and the other, finer-grained, layer corresponding to slower winter deposition. Although it is not easy to discern such details in the Proterozoic examples, they are almost certainly glacial varves. These fine-grained, layered sediments even contain occasional large pebbles or "dropstones," a characteristic feature of glacial environments where coarse material is sometimes carried on floating ice and dropped far from its source, into otherwise very fine grained sediment. Glacial sediments of about the same age as those in Canada have been found in other parts of North America and in Africa, India, and Europe. This indicates that the glaciation was global, and that for a period of time in the early Proterozoic the Earth was gripped in an ice age.
Following the early Proterozoic glaciation, however, the climate appears to have been fairly benign for a very long time. There is no evidence for glaciation for the next 1.5 billion years or so. Then, suddenly, the rock record indicates a series of glacial episodes between about 850 and 600 million year ago, near the end of the Proterozoic eon. | 406.txt | 3 |
[
"annual cycle",
"glacial lake",
"layer of sediment",
"season"
] | The phrase "the other" in line 17 refers to another | There are only a few clues in the rock record about climate in the Proterozoic eon. Much of our information about climate in the more recent periods of geologic history comes from the fossil record, because we have a reasonably good understanding of the types of environment in which many fossil organisms flourished. The scarce fossils of the Proterozoic, mostly single-celled bacteria, provide little evidence in this regard. However, the rocks themselves do include the earliest evidence for glaciation, probably a global ice age.
The inference that some types of sedimentary rocks are the result of glacial activity is based on the principle of uniformitarianism, which posits that natural processes now at work on and within the Earth operated in the same manner in the distant past. The deposits associated with present-day glaciers have been well studied, and some of their characteristics are quite distinctive. In 2.3-billion-year-old rocks in Canada near Lake Huron (dating from the early part of the Proterozoic age), there are thin laminae of fine-grained sediments that resemble varves, the annual layers of sediment deposited in glacial lakes. Typically, present-day varves show two-layered annual cycle, one layer corresponding to the rapid ice melting and sediment transport of the summer season, and the other, finer-grained, layer corresponding to slower winter deposition. Although it is not easy to discern such details in the Proterozoic examples, they are almost certainly glacial varves. These fine-grained, layered sediments even contain occasional large pebbles or "dropstones," a characteristic feature of glacial environments where coarse material is sometimes carried on floating ice and dropped far from its source, into otherwise very fine grained sediment. Glacial sediments of about the same age as those in Canada have been found in other parts of North America and in Africa, India, and Europe. This indicates that the glaciation was global, and that for a period of time in the early Proterozoic the Earth was gripped in an ice age.
Following the early Proterozoic glaciation, however, the climate appears to have been fairly benign for a very long time. There is no evidence for glaciation for the next 1.5 billion years or so. Then, suddenly, the rock record indicates a series of glacial episodes between about 850 and 600 million year ago, near the end of the Proterozoic eon. | 406.txt | 2 |
[
"the glacial environment has been unusually servere",
"the fine-grained sediment has built up very slowly",
"there has been a global ice age",
"coarse rock material has been carried great distances"
] | According to the passage , the presence of dropstones indicates that | There are only a few clues in the rock record about climate in the Proterozoic eon. Much of our information about climate in the more recent periods of geologic history comes from the fossil record, because we have a reasonably good understanding of the types of environment in which many fossil organisms flourished. The scarce fossils of the Proterozoic, mostly single-celled bacteria, provide little evidence in this regard. However, the rocks themselves do include the earliest evidence for glaciation, probably a global ice age.
The inference that some types of sedimentary rocks are the result of glacial activity is based on the principle of uniformitarianism, which posits that natural processes now at work on and within the Earth operated in the same manner in the distant past. The deposits associated with present-day glaciers have been well studied, and some of their characteristics are quite distinctive. In 2.3-billion-year-old rocks in Canada near Lake Huron (dating from the early part of the Proterozoic age), there are thin laminae of fine-grained sediments that resemble varves, the annual layers of sediment deposited in glacial lakes. Typically, present-day varves show two-layered annual cycle, one layer corresponding to the rapid ice melting and sediment transport of the summer season, and the other, finer-grained, layer corresponding to slower winter deposition. Although it is not easy to discern such details in the Proterozoic examples, they are almost certainly glacial varves. These fine-grained, layered sediments even contain occasional large pebbles or "dropstones," a characteristic feature of glacial environments where coarse material is sometimes carried on floating ice and dropped far from its source, into otherwise very fine grained sediment. Glacial sediments of about the same age as those in Canada have been found in other parts of North America and in Africa, India, and Europe. This indicates that the glaciation was global, and that for a period of time in the early Proterozoic the Earth was gripped in an ice age.
Following the early Proterozoic glaciation, however, the climate appears to have been fairly benign for a very long time. There is no evidence for glaciation for the next 1.5 billion years or so. Then, suddenly, the rock record indicates a series of glacial episodes between about 850 and 600 million year ago, near the end of the Proterozoic eon. | 406.txt | 2 |
[
"To demonstrate the global spread of dropstones",
"To explain the principles of varve formation",
"To provide evidence for the theory that there was a global ice age in the early Proterozoic eon",
"To illustrate the varied climatic changes of the Proterozoic eon in different parts of the globe"
] | Why does the author mention Canada, North America, Africa, India, and Europe in lines 23-24? | There are only a few clues in the rock record about climate in the Proterozoic eon. Much of our information about climate in the more recent periods of geologic history comes from the fossil record, because we have a reasonably good understanding of the types of environment in which many fossil organisms flourished. The scarce fossils of the Proterozoic, mostly single-celled bacteria, provide little evidence in this regard. However, the rocks themselves do include the earliest evidence for glaciation, probably a global ice age.
The inference that some types of sedimentary rocks are the result of glacial activity is based on the principle of uniformitarianism, which posits that natural processes now at work on and within the Earth operated in the same manner in the distant past. The deposits associated with present-day glaciers have been well studied, and some of their characteristics are quite distinctive. In 2.3-billion-year-old rocks in Canada near Lake Huron (dating from the early part of the Proterozoic age), there are thin laminae of fine-grained sediments that resemble varves, the annual layers of sediment deposited in glacial lakes. Typically, present-day varves show two-layered annual cycle, one layer corresponding to the rapid ice melting and sediment transport of the summer season, and the other, finer-grained, layer corresponding to slower winter deposition. Although it is not easy to discern such details in the Proterozoic examples, they are almost certainly glacial varves. These fine-grained, layered sediments even contain occasional large pebbles or "dropstones," a characteristic feature of glacial environments where coarse material is sometimes carried on floating ice and dropped far from its source, into otherwise very fine grained sediment. Glacial sediments of about the same age as those in Canada have been found in other parts of North America and in Africa, India, and Europe. This indicates that the glaciation was global, and that for a period of time in the early Proterozoic the Earth was gripped in an ice age.
Following the early Proterozoic glaciation, however, the climate appears to have been fairly benign for a very long time. There is no evidence for glaciation for the next 1.5 billion years or so. Then, suddenly, the rock record indicates a series of glacial episodes between about 850 and 600 million year ago, near the end of the Proterozoic eon. | 406.txt | 2 |
[
"fossil record (line 3)",
"laminae (line 13)",
"varves (line14)",
"glacial episodes (line 28)"
] | Which of the following terms is defined in the passage ? | There are only a few clues in the rock record about climate in the Proterozoic eon. Much of our information about climate in the more recent periods of geologic history comes from the fossil record, because we have a reasonably good understanding of the types of environment in which many fossil organisms flourished. The scarce fossils of the Proterozoic, mostly single-celled bacteria, provide little evidence in this regard. However, the rocks themselves do include the earliest evidence for glaciation, probably a global ice age.
The inference that some types of sedimentary rocks are the result of glacial activity is based on the principle of uniformitarianism, which posits that natural processes now at work on and within the Earth operated in the same manner in the distant past. The deposits associated with present-day glaciers have been well studied, and some of their characteristics are quite distinctive. In 2.3-billion-year-old rocks in Canada near Lake Huron (dating from the early part of the Proterozoic age), there are thin laminae of fine-grained sediments that resemble varves, the annual layers of sediment deposited in glacial lakes. Typically, present-day varves show two-layered annual cycle, one layer corresponding to the rapid ice melting and sediment transport of the summer season, and the other, finer-grained, layer corresponding to slower winter deposition. Although it is not easy to discern such details in the Proterozoic examples, they are almost certainly glacial varves. These fine-grained, layered sediments even contain occasional large pebbles or "dropstones," a characteristic feature of glacial environments where coarse material is sometimes carried on floating ice and dropped far from its source, into otherwise very fine grained sediment. Glacial sediments of about the same age as those in Canada have been found in other parts of North America and in Africa, India, and Europe. This indicates that the glaciation was global, and that for a period of time in the early Proterozoic the Earth was gripped in an ice age.
Following the early Proterozoic glaciation, however, the climate appears to have been fairly benign for a very long time. There is no evidence for glaciation for the next 1.5 billion years or so. Then, suddenly, the rock record indicates a series of glacial episodes between about 850 and 600 million year ago, near the end of the Proterozoic eon. | 406.txt | 2 |
[
"fat.",
"water.",
"muscles.",
"plastics."
] | If you work out less than 40 minutes, you are actually losing | Physical fitness is today's hot topic. And wherever you turn, you hear something new. But is it all true?
The more you sweat, the more fat you burn. This myth has encouraged people to work out in extreme heat or wear layers of clothes or rubber or plastic weight-loss suits in the hope of sweating fat off. Unfortunately, it's water they're losing, not fat. When you first begin to exercise, you burn carbohydrates or sugars. To burn the fat, plan on working out at least 40 minutes.
No pains, no gains. Many people tend to overdo their exercise programs looking for quick results. Doing so, however, may result in your injury or sore muscles. Your best bet is to start any exercise program slowly and gradually increase the workout. This gives people a good beginning without the pain or injury.
Exercise increases appetite. This is true for hard or intense exercise that lasts for 60 minutes or longer. Gentle exercise that is less than 60 minutes, however, will probably reduce your appetite for one to two hours. Exercise always lowers blood sugar.
You can get fit in 10 minutes a week. This and similar claims are common, but untrue. There are no shortcuts to getting fit. Becoming fit takes work and the general rule is 20 minutes of aerobic activity three times a week. Consistency is the key. If you stop working out, your muscles will turn to fat. If you decrease your activity and continue to eat the same or more, you may gain back the fat that you worked so hard to lose. It's not, however, because your muscles turned to fat. Muscles may atrophy , but they won't turn to fat. Muscle is muscle and fat is fat. | 1261.txt | 1 |
[
"they overdo exercise at the very beginning and slow down gradually.",
"they not do exercise to avoid injury.",
"they start slowly and gradually increase the workout.",
"ignore the injury and sore muscle and persevere in doing the exercise."
] | Paragraph 3 suggests people that | Physical fitness is today's hot topic. And wherever you turn, you hear something new. But is it all true?
The more you sweat, the more fat you burn. This myth has encouraged people to work out in extreme heat or wear layers of clothes or rubber or plastic weight-loss suits in the hope of sweating fat off. Unfortunately, it's water they're losing, not fat. When you first begin to exercise, you burn carbohydrates or sugars. To burn the fat, plan on working out at least 40 minutes.
No pains, no gains. Many people tend to overdo their exercise programs looking for quick results. Doing so, however, may result in your injury or sore muscles. Your best bet is to start any exercise program slowly and gradually increase the workout. This gives people a good beginning without the pain or injury.
Exercise increases appetite. This is true for hard or intense exercise that lasts for 60 minutes or longer. Gentle exercise that is less than 60 minutes, however, will probably reduce your appetite for one to two hours. Exercise always lowers blood sugar.
You can get fit in 10 minutes a week. This and similar claims are common, but untrue. There are no shortcuts to getting fit. Becoming fit takes work and the general rule is 20 minutes of aerobic activity three times a week. Consistency is the key. If you stop working out, your muscles will turn to fat. If you decrease your activity and continue to eat the same or more, you may gain back the fat that you worked so hard to lose. It's not, however, because your muscles turned to fat. Muscles may atrophy , but they won't turn to fat. Muscle is muscle and fat is fat. | 1261.txt | 2 |
[
"Doing intense exercise for 60 minutes or more increases appetite.",
"Doing gentle exercise for much more than 60 minute might increase appetite.",
"Doing gentle exercise for less than 60 minutes will probably reduce appetite.",
"Doing gentle exercise for less than 60 minutes will not lower blood sugar."
] | Which statement is NOT true according to Paragraph 4 | Physical fitness is today's hot topic. And wherever you turn, you hear something new. But is it all true?
The more you sweat, the more fat you burn. This myth has encouraged people to work out in extreme heat or wear layers of clothes or rubber or plastic weight-loss suits in the hope of sweating fat off. Unfortunately, it's water they're losing, not fat. When you first begin to exercise, you burn carbohydrates or sugars. To burn the fat, plan on working out at least 40 minutes.
No pains, no gains. Many people tend to overdo their exercise programs looking for quick results. Doing so, however, may result in your injury or sore muscles. Your best bet is to start any exercise program slowly and gradually increase the workout. This gives people a good beginning without the pain or injury.
Exercise increases appetite. This is true for hard or intense exercise that lasts for 60 minutes or longer. Gentle exercise that is less than 60 minutes, however, will probably reduce your appetite for one to two hours. Exercise always lowers blood sugar.
You can get fit in 10 minutes a week. This and similar claims are common, but untrue. There are no shortcuts to getting fit. Becoming fit takes work and the general rule is 20 minutes of aerobic activity three times a week. Consistency is the key. If you stop working out, your muscles will turn to fat. If you decrease your activity and continue to eat the same or more, you may gain back the fat that you worked so hard to lose. It's not, however, because your muscles turned to fat. Muscles may atrophy , but they won't turn to fat. Muscle is muscle and fat is fat. | 1261.txt | 3 |
[
"one can get fit in ten minutes a week.",
"there is no shortcuts to getting fit.",
"if one is consistent, he/she will find the shortcut to getting fit.",
"one must have a job if he/she wants to get fit."
] | The writer believes that | Physical fitness is today's hot topic. And wherever you turn, you hear something new. But is it all true?
The more you sweat, the more fat you burn. This myth has encouraged people to work out in extreme heat or wear layers of clothes or rubber or plastic weight-loss suits in the hope of sweating fat off. Unfortunately, it's water they're losing, not fat. When you first begin to exercise, you burn carbohydrates or sugars. To burn the fat, plan on working out at least 40 minutes.
No pains, no gains. Many people tend to overdo their exercise programs looking for quick results. Doing so, however, may result in your injury or sore muscles. Your best bet is to start any exercise program slowly and gradually increase the workout. This gives people a good beginning without the pain or injury.
Exercise increases appetite. This is true for hard or intense exercise that lasts for 60 minutes or longer. Gentle exercise that is less than 60 minutes, however, will probably reduce your appetite for one to two hours. Exercise always lowers blood sugar.
You can get fit in 10 minutes a week. This and similar claims are common, but untrue. There are no shortcuts to getting fit. Becoming fit takes work and the general rule is 20 minutes of aerobic activity three times a week. Consistency is the key. If you stop working out, your muscles will turn to fat. If you decrease your activity and continue to eat the same or more, you may gain back the fat that you worked so hard to lose. It's not, however, because your muscles turned to fat. Muscles may atrophy , but they won't turn to fat. Muscle is muscle and fat is fat. | 1261.txt | 1 |
[
"your muscles may become smaller.",
"your muscles become fat.",
"you will put on muscles.",
"nothing changes at all."
] | If you decrease your activity and continue to eat the same or more | Physical fitness is today's hot topic. And wherever you turn, you hear something new. But is it all true?
The more you sweat, the more fat you burn. This myth has encouraged people to work out in extreme heat or wear layers of clothes or rubber or plastic weight-loss suits in the hope of sweating fat off. Unfortunately, it's water they're losing, not fat. When you first begin to exercise, you burn carbohydrates or sugars. To burn the fat, plan on working out at least 40 minutes.
No pains, no gains. Many people tend to overdo their exercise programs looking for quick results. Doing so, however, may result in your injury or sore muscles. Your best bet is to start any exercise program slowly and gradually increase the workout. This gives people a good beginning without the pain or injury.
Exercise increases appetite. This is true for hard or intense exercise that lasts for 60 minutes or longer. Gentle exercise that is less than 60 minutes, however, will probably reduce your appetite for one to two hours. Exercise always lowers blood sugar.
You can get fit in 10 minutes a week. This and similar claims are common, but untrue. There are no shortcuts to getting fit. Becoming fit takes work and the general rule is 20 minutes of aerobic activity three times a week. Consistency is the key. If you stop working out, your muscles will turn to fat. If you decrease your activity and continue to eat the same or more, you may gain back the fat that you worked so hard to lose. It's not, however, because your muscles turned to fat. Muscles may atrophy , but they won't turn to fat. Muscle is muscle and fat is fat. | 1261.txt | 0 |
[
"Advertisement.",
"The benefits of advertisement.",
"Advertisers perform a useful service to communities.",
"The costs of advertisement."
] | What is main idea of this passage? | Advertisers Perform a Useful Service to the Community
Advertisers tend to think big and perhaps this is why they're always coming in for criticism. Their critics seem to resent them because they have a flair for self-promotion and because they have so much money to throw around. It' s iniquitous,'they say, `that this entirely unproductive industry (if we can call it that) should absorb millions of pounds each year. It only goes to show how much profit the big companies are making. Why don' t they stop advertising and reduce the price of their goods? After all, it' s the consumer who paysw'The poor old consumer! He' d have to pay a great deal more if advertising didn't create mass markets for products. It is precisely because of the heavy advertising that consumer goods are so cheap. But we get the wrong idea if we think the only purpose of advertising is to sell goods. Another equally important function is to inform. A great deal of the knowledge we have about household goods derives largely from the advertisements we read.
Advertisements introduce us to new products or remind us of the existence of ones we already know about. Supposing you wanted to buy a washing machine, it is more than likely you would obtain details regarding performance, price, etc., from an advertisement.
Lots of people pretend that they never read advertisements, but this claim may be seriously doubted. It is hardly possible not to read advertisements these days. And what fun they often are, too! Just think
what a railway station or a newspaper would be like without advertisements. Would you enjoy gazing at a blank wall or reading railway byelaws while waiting for a train? Would you like to read only closely printed columns of news in your daily paper? A cheerful, witty advertisement makes such a difference to a drab wall or a newspaper full of the daily ration of calamities.
We must not forget, either, that advertising makes a positive contribution to our pockets. Newspapers, commercial radio and television companies could not subsist without this source of revenue. The fact that we pay so little for our daily paper, or can enjoy so many broadcast programmes is due entirely to the money spent by advertisers. Just think what a newspaper would cost if we had to pay its full price!
Another thing we mustn't forget is the'small ads.'which are in virtually every newspaper and magazine. What a tremendously useful service they perform for the community! Just about anything can be accomplished through these columns. For instance, you can find a job, buy or sell a house, announce a birth, marriage or death in what used to be called the `hatch, match and dispatch'column but by far the most fascinating section is the personal or `agony'column. No other item in a newspaper provides such entertaining reading or offers such a deep insight into human nature. It' s the best advertisement for advertising there is! | 248.txt | 2 |
[
"appreciative.",
"trustworthy.",
".critical.",
"dissatisfactory."
] | The attitude of the author toward advertisers is | Advertisers Perform a Useful Service to the Community
Advertisers tend to think big and perhaps this is why they're always coming in for criticism. Their critics seem to resent them because they have a flair for self-promotion and because they have so much money to throw around. It' s iniquitous,'they say, `that this entirely unproductive industry (if we can call it that) should absorb millions of pounds each year. It only goes to show how much profit the big companies are making. Why don' t they stop advertising and reduce the price of their goods? After all, it' s the consumer who paysw'The poor old consumer! He' d have to pay a great deal more if advertising didn't create mass markets for products. It is precisely because of the heavy advertising that consumer goods are so cheap. But we get the wrong idea if we think the only purpose of advertising is to sell goods. Another equally important function is to inform. A great deal of the knowledge we have about household goods derives largely from the advertisements we read.
Advertisements introduce us to new products or remind us of the existence of ones we already know about. Supposing you wanted to buy a washing machine, it is more than likely you would obtain details regarding performance, price, etc., from an advertisement.
Lots of people pretend that they never read advertisements, but this claim may be seriously doubted. It is hardly possible not to read advertisements these days. And what fun they often are, too! Just think
what a railway station or a newspaper would be like without advertisements. Would you enjoy gazing at a blank wall or reading railway byelaws while waiting for a train? Would you like to read only closely printed columns of news in your daily paper? A cheerful, witty advertisement makes such a difference to a drab wall or a newspaper full of the daily ration of calamities.
We must not forget, either, that advertising makes a positive contribution to our pockets. Newspapers, commercial radio and television companies could not subsist without this source of revenue. The fact that we pay so little for our daily paper, or can enjoy so many broadcast programmes is due entirely to the money spent by advertisers. Just think what a newspaper would cost if we had to pay its full price!
Another thing we mustn't forget is the'small ads.'which are in virtually every newspaper and magazine. What a tremendously useful service they perform for the community! Just about anything can be accomplished through these columns. For instance, you can find a job, buy or sell a house, announce a birth, marriage or death in what used to be called the `hatch, match and dispatch'column but by far the most fascinating section is the personal or `agony'column. No other item in a newspaper provides such entertaining reading or offers such a deep insight into human nature. It' s the best advertisement for advertising there is! | 248.txt | 0 |
[
"Because advertisers often brag.",
"Because critics think advertisement is a \"waste of money\".",
"Because customers are encouraged to buy more than necessary.",
"Because customers pay more."
] | Why do the critics criticize advertisers? | Advertisers Perform a Useful Service to the Community
Advertisers tend to think big and perhaps this is why they're always coming in for criticism. Their critics seem to resent them because they have a flair for self-promotion and because they have so much money to throw around. It' s iniquitous,'they say, `that this entirely unproductive industry (if we can call it that) should absorb millions of pounds each year. It only goes to show how much profit the big companies are making. Why don' t they stop advertising and reduce the price of their goods? After all, it' s the consumer who paysw'The poor old consumer! He' d have to pay a great deal more if advertising didn't create mass markets for products. It is precisely because of the heavy advertising that consumer goods are so cheap. But we get the wrong idea if we think the only purpose of advertising is to sell goods. Another equally important function is to inform. A great deal of the knowledge we have about household goods derives largely from the advertisements we read.
Advertisements introduce us to new products or remind us of the existence of ones we already know about. Supposing you wanted to buy a washing machine, it is more than likely you would obtain details regarding performance, price, etc., from an advertisement.
Lots of people pretend that they never read advertisements, but this claim may be seriously doubted. It is hardly possible not to read advertisements these days. And what fun they often are, too! Just think
what a railway station or a newspaper would be like without advertisements. Would you enjoy gazing at a blank wall or reading railway byelaws while waiting for a train? Would you like to read only closely printed columns of news in your daily paper? A cheerful, witty advertisement makes such a difference to a drab wall or a newspaper full of the daily ration of calamities.
We must not forget, either, that advertising makes a positive contribution to our pockets. Newspapers, commercial radio and television companies could not subsist without this source of revenue. The fact that we pay so little for our daily paper, or can enjoy so many broadcast programmes is due entirely to the money spent by advertisers. Just think what a newspaper would cost if we had to pay its full price!
Another thing we mustn't forget is the'small ads.'which are in virtually every newspaper and magazine. What a tremendously useful service they perform for the community! Just about anything can be accomplished through these columns. For instance, you can find a job, buy or sell a house, announce a birth, marriage or death in what used to be called the `hatch, match and dispatch'column but by far the most fascinating section is the personal or `agony'column. No other item in a newspaper provides such entertaining reading or offers such a deep insight into human nature. It' s the best advertisement for advertising there is! | 248.txt | 0 |
[
"Advertisement makes contribution to our pockets and we may know everythir",
"We can buy what we want.",
"Good quality products don't need to be advertised.",
"Advertisement makes our life colorful."
] | Which of the following is Not True? | Advertisers Perform a Useful Service to the Community
Advertisers tend to think big and perhaps this is why they're always coming in for criticism. Their critics seem to resent them because they have a flair for self-promotion and because they have so much money to throw around. It' s iniquitous,'they say, `that this entirely unproductive industry (if we can call it that) should absorb millions of pounds each year. It only goes to show how much profit the big companies are making. Why don' t they stop advertising and reduce the price of their goods? After all, it' s the consumer who paysw'The poor old consumer! He' d have to pay a great deal more if advertising didn't create mass markets for products. It is precisely because of the heavy advertising that consumer goods are so cheap. But we get the wrong idea if we think the only purpose of advertising is to sell goods. Another equally important function is to inform. A great deal of the knowledge we have about household goods derives largely from the advertisements we read.
Advertisements introduce us to new products or remind us of the existence of ones we already know about. Supposing you wanted to buy a washing machine, it is more than likely you would obtain details regarding performance, price, etc., from an advertisement.
Lots of people pretend that they never read advertisements, but this claim may be seriously doubted. It is hardly possible not to read advertisements these days. And what fun they often are, too! Just think
what a railway station or a newspaper would be like without advertisements. Would you enjoy gazing at a blank wall or reading railway byelaws while waiting for a train? Would you like to read only closely printed columns of news in your daily paper? A cheerful, witty advertisement makes such a difference to a drab wall or a newspaper full of the daily ration of calamities.
We must not forget, either, that advertising makes a positive contribution to our pockets. Newspapers, commercial radio and television companies could not subsist without this source of revenue. The fact that we pay so little for our daily paper, or can enjoy so many broadcast programmes is due entirely to the money spent by advertisers. Just think what a newspaper would cost if we had to pay its full price!
Another thing we mustn't forget is the'small ads.'which are in virtually every newspaper and magazine. What a tremendously useful service they perform for the community! Just about anything can be accomplished through these columns. For instance, you can find a job, buy or sell a house, announce a birth, marriage or death in what used to be called the `hatch, match and dispatch'column but by far the most fascinating section is the personal or `agony'column. No other item in a newspaper provides such entertaining reading or offers such a deep insight into human nature. It' s the best advertisement for advertising there is! | 248.txt | 2 |
[
"Narration.",
"Description.",
"Criticism.",
"Argumentation."
] | The passage is | Advertisers Perform a Useful Service to the Community
Advertisers tend to think big and perhaps this is why they're always coming in for criticism. Their critics seem to resent them because they have a flair for self-promotion and because they have so much money to throw around. It' s iniquitous,'they say, `that this entirely unproductive industry (if we can call it that) should absorb millions of pounds each year. It only goes to show how much profit the big companies are making. Why don' t they stop advertising and reduce the price of their goods? After all, it' s the consumer who paysw'The poor old consumer! He' d have to pay a great deal more if advertising didn't create mass markets for products. It is precisely because of the heavy advertising that consumer goods are so cheap. But we get the wrong idea if we think the only purpose of advertising is to sell goods. Another equally important function is to inform. A great deal of the knowledge we have about household goods derives largely from the advertisements we read.
Advertisements introduce us to new products or remind us of the existence of ones we already know about. Supposing you wanted to buy a washing machine, it is more than likely you would obtain details regarding performance, price, etc., from an advertisement.
Lots of people pretend that they never read advertisements, but this claim may be seriously doubted. It is hardly possible not to read advertisements these days. And what fun they often are, too! Just think
what a railway station or a newspaper would be like without advertisements. Would you enjoy gazing at a blank wall or reading railway byelaws while waiting for a train? Would you like to read only closely printed columns of news in your daily paper? A cheerful, witty advertisement makes such a difference to a drab wall or a newspaper full of the daily ration of calamities.
We must not forget, either, that advertising makes a positive contribution to our pockets. Newspapers, commercial radio and television companies could not subsist without this source of revenue. The fact that we pay so little for our daily paper, or can enjoy so many broadcast programmes is due entirely to the money spent by advertisers. Just think what a newspaper would cost if we had to pay its full price!
Another thing we mustn't forget is the'small ads.'which are in virtually every newspaper and magazine. What a tremendously useful service they perform for the community! Just about anything can be accomplished through these columns. For instance, you can find a job, buy or sell a house, announce a birth, marriage or death in what used to be called the `hatch, match and dispatch'column but by far the most fascinating section is the personal or `agony'column. No other item in a newspaper provides such entertaining reading or offers such a deep insight into human nature. It' s the best advertisement for advertising there is! | 248.txt | 2 |
[
"a technical failure",
"a technical wonder",
"a good life-saver",
"an effective means to treat heart disease"
] | According to the passage the Jarvik-7 artificial heart proved to be _ . | Just seven years ago, the Jarvik-7 artificial heart was being cheered as the model of human creativeness. The sight of Barney Clark-alive and conscious after trading his diseased heart for a metal-and-plastic pump-convinced the press, the public and many doctors that the future had arrived. It hadn't. After monitoring production of the Jarvik-7, and reviewing its effects on the 150 or so patients (most of whom got the device as a temporary measure) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded that the machine was doing more to endanger lives than to save them. Last week the agency cancelled its earlier approval, effectively banning the device.
The recall may hurt Symbion Inc., maker of the Jarvik-7, but it won't end the request for an artificial heart. One problem with the banned model is that the tubes connecting it to an external power source created a passage for infection. Inventors are now working on new devices that would be fully placed, along with a tiny power pack, in the patient's chest. The first sample products aren't expected for another 10 or 20 years: But some people are already worrying that they'll work-and that America's overextended health-care programs will lose a precious $2.5 billion to $5 billion a year providing them for a relatively few dying patients. If such expenditures cut into funding for more basic care, the net effect could actually be a decline in the nation's health. | 3234.txt | 0 |
[
"has been banned by the government from producing artificial hearts",
"will review the effects of artificial hearts before designing new models",
"may continue to work on new models of reliable artificial hearts",
"can make new models of artificial hearts available on the market in 10 to 20 years"
] | From the passage we know that Symbion Inc _ . | Just seven years ago, the Jarvik-7 artificial heart was being cheered as the model of human creativeness. The sight of Barney Clark-alive and conscious after trading his diseased heart for a metal-and-plastic pump-convinced the press, the public and many doctors that the future had arrived. It hadn't. After monitoring production of the Jarvik-7, and reviewing its effects on the 150 or so patients (most of whom got the device as a temporary measure) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded that the machine was doing more to endanger lives than to save them. Last week the agency cancelled its earlier approval, effectively banning the device.
The recall may hurt Symbion Inc., maker of the Jarvik-7, but it won't end the request for an artificial heart. One problem with the banned model is that the tubes connecting it to an external power source created a passage for infection. Inventors are now working on new devices that would be fully placed, along with a tiny power pack, in the patient's chest. The first sample products aren't expected for another 10 or 20 years: But some people are already worrying that they'll work-and that America's overextended health-care programs will lose a precious $2.5 billion to $5 billion a year providing them for a relatively few dying patients. If such expenditures cut into funding for more basic care, the net effect could actually be a decline in the nation's health. | 3234.txt | 2 |
[
"to have a working life of 10 or 20 years",
"to be set fully in the patient's chest",
"to be equipped with an external power source",
"to create a new passage for infection"
] | The new models of artificial hearts are expected _ . | Just seven years ago, the Jarvik-7 artificial heart was being cheered as the model of human creativeness. The sight of Barney Clark-alive and conscious after trading his diseased heart for a metal-and-plastic pump-convinced the press, the public and many doctors that the future had arrived. It hadn't. After monitoring production of the Jarvik-7, and reviewing its effects on the 150 or so patients (most of whom got the device as a temporary measure) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded that the machine was doing more to endanger lives than to save them. Last week the agency cancelled its earlier approval, effectively banning the device.
The recall may hurt Symbion Inc., maker of the Jarvik-7, but it won't end the request for an artificial heart. One problem with the banned model is that the tubes connecting it to an external power source created a passage for infection. Inventors are now working on new devices that would be fully placed, along with a tiny power pack, in the patient's chest. The first sample products aren't expected for another 10 or 20 years: But some people are already worrying that they'll work-and that America's overextended health-care programs will lose a precious $2.5 billion to $5 billion a year providing them for a relatively few dying patients. If such expenditures cut into funding for more basic care, the net effect could actually be a decline in the nation's health. | 3234.txt | 1 |
[
"doctors who treat heart diseases",
"makers of artificial hearts",
"America's health-care programs",
"new models of artificial hearts"
] | The word "them" in Line 7, Para. 2 refers to _ . | Just seven years ago, the Jarvik-7 artificial heart was being cheered as the model of human creativeness. The sight of Barney Clark-alive and conscious after trading his diseased heart for a metal-and-plastic pump-convinced the press, the public and many doctors that the future had arrived. It hadn't. After monitoring production of the Jarvik-7, and reviewing its effects on the 150 or so patients (most of whom got the device as a temporary measure) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded that the machine was doing more to endanger lives than to save them. Last week the agency cancelled its earlier approval, effectively banning the device.
The recall may hurt Symbion Inc., maker of the Jarvik-7, but it won't end the request for an artificial heart. One problem with the banned model is that the tubes connecting it to an external power source created a passage for infection. Inventors are now working on new devices that would be fully placed, along with a tiny power pack, in the patient's chest. The first sample products aren't expected for another 10 or 20 years: But some people are already worrying that they'll work-and that America's overextended health-care programs will lose a precious $2.5 billion to $5 billion a year providing them for a relatively few dying patients. If such expenditures cut into funding for more basic care, the net effect could actually be a decline in the nation's health. | 3234.txt | 3 |
[
"artificial hearts are seldom effective",
"the country should not spend so much money on artificial hearts",
"the country is not spending enough money on artificial hearts",
"America's health-care programs are not doing enough for the nation's health"
] | Some people feel that _ . | Just seven years ago, the Jarvik-7 artificial heart was being cheered as the model of human creativeness. The sight of Barney Clark-alive and conscious after trading his diseased heart for a metal-and-plastic pump-convinced the press, the public and many doctors that the future had arrived. It hadn't. After monitoring production of the Jarvik-7, and reviewing its effects on the 150 or so patients (most of whom got the device as a temporary measure) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded that the machine was doing more to endanger lives than to save them. Last week the agency cancelled its earlier approval, effectively banning the device.
The recall may hurt Symbion Inc., maker of the Jarvik-7, but it won't end the request for an artificial heart. One problem with the banned model is that the tubes connecting it to an external power source created a passage for infection. Inventors are now working on new devices that would be fully placed, along with a tiny power pack, in the patient's chest. The first sample products aren't expected for another 10 or 20 years: But some people are already worrying that they'll work-and that America's overextended health-care programs will lose a precious $2.5 billion to $5 billion a year providing them for a relatively few dying patients. If such expenditures cut into funding for more basic care, the net effect could actually be a decline in the nation's health. | 3234.txt | 1 |
[
"To capture creatures along the sea bottom.",
"To provide Forbes with transportation back and forth across the Aegean.",
"To test the effectiveness of a new type of dredge.",
"To carry out a survey of the Aegean Sea."
] | According to paragraph 1, why was the HMS Beacon in the Aegean Sea? | In 1841 Edward Forbes was offered the chance to serve as naturalist aboard HMS Beacon, an English Royal Navy ship assigned to survey the Aegean Sea. For a year and a half the Beacon crisscrossed the Aegean waters. During that time Forbes was able to drag this small, triangular dregdge - a tool with a leather net for capturing creatures along the sea bottom - at a hundred locations, at depths ranging from 6 to 1380 feet. He collected hundreds of different species of animals, and he saw that they were distributed in eight different depth zones, each containing its own distinct assemblage of animal life, the way zones of elevation on the side of a mountain are populated by distinct sets of plants.
Forbes also thought he saw, as he later told the British Association, that "the number of species and individuals diminishes as we descend, pointing to a zero in the distribution of animal life as yet unvisited." This zero, Forbes casually speculated-he simply extended a line on his graph of animal number versus depth-probably began at a depth of 1,800 feet. Below that was the final zone in Forbes's scheme, zone nine, a zone that covered most of the ocean floor and thus most of the solid surface of Earth: Forbes called this the azoic zone, where no animal, to say nothing of plants, could survive.
Forbes's azoic zone was entirely plausible at the time, and it was certainly far from the strangest idea that was then entertained about the deep sea. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, a French naturalist named Francois Peron had sailed around the world measuring the temperature of the ocean. He found that the deeper the water, the colder it got, and he concluded that the seafloor was covered with a thick layer of ice. Peron ignored the fact that water expands when it freezes and that ice therefore floats. A more popular belief at the time was that water at great depth would be compressed to such a density that nothing could sink through it. This ignored the fact that water is all but incompressible. But even the more sensible naturalists of the day were guilty of a similar misconception. They imagined the deep sea as being filled with an unmoving and undisturbable pool of cold, dense water. In reality the deep is always being refreshed by cold water sinking from above.
The central implication of all these misconceptions was that nothing could live in the abyss (deep), just as Forbes's observations seemed to indicate. But Forbes erred in two ways. One was the particular study site he happened to use as a springboard for his sweeping postulate of a lifeless abyss. Although the Aegean had been the birthplace of marine biology, its depths are now known to be exceptionally lacking in animal diversity. Moreover, through no fault of his own, Forbes was not particularly successful at sampling such life as did exist at the bottom of the Aegean. It was his dredge that was inadequate. Its opening was so small and the holes in the net so large that the dredge inevitably missed animals. Many of those it did catch must have poured out of its open mouth when Forbes reeled it in. His azoic zone, then, was a plausible but wild extrapolation from pioneering but feeble data.
As it turned out, the existence of the azoic zone had been disproved even before Forbes suggested it, and the theory continued to be contradicted regularly throughout its long and influential life. Searching for the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 1818, Sir John Ross had lowered his "deep-sea clam"-a sort of bivalved sediment scoop-into the water of Baffin Bay ( an inlet between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans), which the determined to be more than a thousand fathoms deep in some places. Modern soundings indicate he overestimated his depths by several hundred fathoms, but in any case Ross's clam dove several times deeper than Forbes's dredge. It brought back mud laced with worms, and starfish that dad entangled themselves in the line at depths well below the supposed boundary of the azoic zone. | 3431.txt | 3 |
[
"To indicate how Forbes concluded that some forms of animal life in the depths of the ocean had never been seen before.",
"To help explain how Forbes arrived at his theory of the azoic zone.",
"To make the point that Forbes was a well-trained professional.",
"To show how naturalists of Forbes's time carried out their research."
] | Why does the author mention that Forbes "extended a line on his graph of animal number versus depth"? | In 1841 Edward Forbes was offered the chance to serve as naturalist aboard HMS Beacon, an English Royal Navy ship assigned to survey the Aegean Sea. For a year and a half the Beacon crisscrossed the Aegean waters. During that time Forbes was able to drag this small, triangular dregdge - a tool with a leather net for capturing creatures along the sea bottom - at a hundred locations, at depths ranging from 6 to 1380 feet. He collected hundreds of different species of animals, and he saw that they were distributed in eight different depth zones, each containing its own distinct assemblage of animal life, the way zones of elevation on the side of a mountain are populated by distinct sets of plants.
Forbes also thought he saw, as he later told the British Association, that "the number of species and individuals diminishes as we descend, pointing to a zero in the distribution of animal life as yet unvisited." This zero, Forbes casually speculated-he simply extended a line on his graph of animal number versus depth-probably began at a depth of 1,800 feet. Below that was the final zone in Forbes's scheme, zone nine, a zone that covered most of the ocean floor and thus most of the solid surface of Earth: Forbes called this the azoic zone, where no animal, to say nothing of plants, could survive.
Forbes's azoic zone was entirely plausible at the time, and it was certainly far from the strangest idea that was then entertained about the deep sea. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, a French naturalist named Francois Peron had sailed around the world measuring the temperature of the ocean. He found that the deeper the water, the colder it got, and he concluded that the seafloor was covered with a thick layer of ice. Peron ignored the fact that water expands when it freezes and that ice therefore floats. A more popular belief at the time was that water at great depth would be compressed to such a density that nothing could sink through it. This ignored the fact that water is all but incompressible. But even the more sensible naturalists of the day were guilty of a similar misconception. They imagined the deep sea as being filled with an unmoving and undisturbable pool of cold, dense water. In reality the deep is always being refreshed by cold water sinking from above.
The central implication of all these misconceptions was that nothing could live in the abyss (deep), just as Forbes's observations seemed to indicate. But Forbes erred in two ways. One was the particular study site he happened to use as a springboard for his sweeping postulate of a lifeless abyss. Although the Aegean had been the birthplace of marine biology, its depths are now known to be exceptionally lacking in animal diversity. Moreover, through no fault of his own, Forbes was not particularly successful at sampling such life as did exist at the bottom of the Aegean. It was his dredge that was inadequate. Its opening was so small and the holes in the net so large that the dredge inevitably missed animals. Many of those it did catch must have poured out of its open mouth when Forbes reeled it in. His azoic zone, then, was a plausible but wild extrapolation from pioneering but feeble data.
As it turned out, the existence of the azoic zone had been disproved even before Forbes suggested it, and the theory continued to be contradicted regularly throughout its long and influential life. Searching for the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 1818, Sir John Ross had lowered his "deep-sea clam"-a sort of bivalved sediment scoop-into the water of Baffin Bay ( an inlet between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans), which the determined to be more than a thousand fathoms deep in some places. Modern soundings indicate he overestimated his depths by several hundred fathoms, but in any case Ross's clam dove several times deeper than Forbes's dredge. It brought back mud laced with worms, and starfish that dad entangled themselves in the line at depths well below the supposed boundary of the azoic zone. | 3431.txt | 1 |
[
"No plants or animals could live there.",
"Only plants could live there.",
"Only animals could live there.",
"It was not possible to say whether any plants or animals could live there."
] | According to paragraph 2, what did Forbes believe about the possibility of life on the ocean floor deeper than 1,800 feet deep? | In 1841 Edward Forbes was offered the chance to serve as naturalist aboard HMS Beacon, an English Royal Navy ship assigned to survey the Aegean Sea. For a year and a half the Beacon crisscrossed the Aegean waters. During that time Forbes was able to drag this small, triangular dregdge - a tool with a leather net for capturing creatures along the sea bottom - at a hundred locations, at depths ranging from 6 to 1380 feet. He collected hundreds of different species of animals, and he saw that they were distributed in eight different depth zones, each containing its own distinct assemblage of animal life, the way zones of elevation on the side of a mountain are populated by distinct sets of plants.
Forbes also thought he saw, as he later told the British Association, that "the number of species and individuals diminishes as we descend, pointing to a zero in the distribution of animal life as yet unvisited." This zero, Forbes casually speculated-he simply extended a line on his graph of animal number versus depth-probably began at a depth of 1,800 feet. Below that was the final zone in Forbes's scheme, zone nine, a zone that covered most of the ocean floor and thus most of the solid surface of Earth: Forbes called this the azoic zone, where no animal, to say nothing of plants, could survive.
Forbes's azoic zone was entirely plausible at the time, and it was certainly far from the strangest idea that was then entertained about the deep sea. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, a French naturalist named Francois Peron had sailed around the world measuring the temperature of the ocean. He found that the deeper the water, the colder it got, and he concluded that the seafloor was covered with a thick layer of ice. Peron ignored the fact that water expands when it freezes and that ice therefore floats. A more popular belief at the time was that water at great depth would be compressed to such a density that nothing could sink through it. This ignored the fact that water is all but incompressible. But even the more sensible naturalists of the day were guilty of a similar misconception. They imagined the deep sea as being filled with an unmoving and undisturbable pool of cold, dense water. In reality the deep is always being refreshed by cold water sinking from above.
The central implication of all these misconceptions was that nothing could live in the abyss (deep), just as Forbes's observations seemed to indicate. But Forbes erred in two ways. One was the particular study site he happened to use as a springboard for his sweeping postulate of a lifeless abyss. Although the Aegean had been the birthplace of marine biology, its depths are now known to be exceptionally lacking in animal diversity. Moreover, through no fault of his own, Forbes was not particularly successful at sampling such life as did exist at the bottom of the Aegean. It was his dredge that was inadequate. Its opening was so small and the holes in the net so large that the dredge inevitably missed animals. Many of those it did catch must have poured out of its open mouth when Forbes reeled it in. His azoic zone, then, was a plausible but wild extrapolation from pioneering but feeble data.
As it turned out, the existence of the azoic zone had been disproved even before Forbes suggested it, and the theory continued to be contradicted regularly throughout its long and influential life. Searching for the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 1818, Sir John Ross had lowered his "deep-sea clam"-a sort of bivalved sediment scoop-into the water of Baffin Bay ( an inlet between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans), which the determined to be more than a thousand fathoms deep in some places. Modern soundings indicate he overestimated his depths by several hundred fathoms, but in any case Ross's clam dove several times deeper than Forbes's dredge. It brought back mud laced with worms, and starfish that dad entangled themselves in the line at depths well below the supposed boundary of the azoic zone. | 3431.txt | 0 |
[
"It was based on inaccurate temperature measurements.",
"It assumed that the deeper the water, the colder it got.",
"It did not take into account the fact that ice floats.",
"It overlooked the fact that the sea is deeper in some places than in others."
] | According to paragraph 3, what was wrong with Francois Peron's conclusion? | In 1841 Edward Forbes was offered the chance to serve as naturalist aboard HMS Beacon, an English Royal Navy ship assigned to survey the Aegean Sea. For a year and a half the Beacon crisscrossed the Aegean waters. During that time Forbes was able to drag this small, triangular dregdge - a tool with a leather net for capturing creatures along the sea bottom - at a hundred locations, at depths ranging from 6 to 1380 feet. He collected hundreds of different species of animals, and he saw that they were distributed in eight different depth zones, each containing its own distinct assemblage of animal life, the way zones of elevation on the side of a mountain are populated by distinct sets of plants.
Forbes also thought he saw, as he later told the British Association, that "the number of species and individuals diminishes as we descend, pointing to a zero in the distribution of animal life as yet unvisited." This zero, Forbes casually speculated-he simply extended a line on his graph of animal number versus depth-probably began at a depth of 1,800 feet. Below that was the final zone in Forbes's scheme, zone nine, a zone that covered most of the ocean floor and thus most of the solid surface of Earth: Forbes called this the azoic zone, where no animal, to say nothing of plants, could survive.
Forbes's azoic zone was entirely plausible at the time, and it was certainly far from the strangest idea that was then entertained about the deep sea. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, a French naturalist named Francois Peron had sailed around the world measuring the temperature of the ocean. He found that the deeper the water, the colder it got, and he concluded that the seafloor was covered with a thick layer of ice. Peron ignored the fact that water expands when it freezes and that ice therefore floats. A more popular belief at the time was that water at great depth would be compressed to such a density that nothing could sink through it. This ignored the fact that water is all but incompressible. But even the more sensible naturalists of the day were guilty of a similar misconception. They imagined the deep sea as being filled with an unmoving and undisturbable pool of cold, dense water. In reality the deep is always being refreshed by cold water sinking from above.
The central implication of all these misconceptions was that nothing could live in the abyss (deep), just as Forbes's observations seemed to indicate. But Forbes erred in two ways. One was the particular study site he happened to use as a springboard for his sweeping postulate of a lifeless abyss. Although the Aegean had been the birthplace of marine biology, its depths are now known to be exceptionally lacking in animal diversity. Moreover, through no fault of his own, Forbes was not particularly successful at sampling such life as did exist at the bottom of the Aegean. It was his dredge that was inadequate. Its opening was so small and the holes in the net so large that the dredge inevitably missed animals. Many of those it did catch must have poured out of its open mouth when Forbes reeled it in. His azoic zone, then, was a plausible but wild extrapolation from pioneering but feeble data.
As it turned out, the existence of the azoic zone had been disproved even before Forbes suggested it, and the theory continued to be contradicted regularly throughout its long and influential life. Searching for the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 1818, Sir John Ross had lowered his "deep-sea clam"-a sort of bivalved sediment scoop-into the water of Baffin Bay ( an inlet between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans), which the determined to be more than a thousand fathoms deep in some places. Modern soundings indicate he overestimated his depths by several hundred fathoms, but in any case Ross's clam dove several times deeper than Forbes's dredge. It brought back mud laced with worms, and starfish that dad entangled themselves in the line at depths well below the supposed boundary of the azoic zone. | 3431.txt | 2 |
[
"famous",
"highly trained",
"reasonable",
"experienced"
] | The word "sensible" in the passage is closest in meaning to | In 1841 Edward Forbes was offered the chance to serve as naturalist aboard HMS Beacon, an English Royal Navy ship assigned to survey the Aegean Sea. For a year and a half the Beacon crisscrossed the Aegean waters. During that time Forbes was able to drag this small, triangular dregdge - a tool with a leather net for capturing creatures along the sea bottom - at a hundred locations, at depths ranging from 6 to 1380 feet. He collected hundreds of different species of animals, and he saw that they were distributed in eight different depth zones, each containing its own distinct assemblage of animal life, the way zones of elevation on the side of a mountain are populated by distinct sets of plants.
Forbes also thought he saw, as he later told the British Association, that "the number of species and individuals diminishes as we descend, pointing to a zero in the distribution of animal life as yet unvisited." This zero, Forbes casually speculated-he simply extended a line on his graph of animal number versus depth-probably began at a depth of 1,800 feet. Below that was the final zone in Forbes's scheme, zone nine, a zone that covered most of the ocean floor and thus most of the solid surface of Earth: Forbes called this the azoic zone, where no animal, to say nothing of plants, could survive.
Forbes's azoic zone was entirely plausible at the time, and it was certainly far from the strangest idea that was then entertained about the deep sea. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, a French naturalist named Francois Peron had sailed around the world measuring the temperature of the ocean. He found that the deeper the water, the colder it got, and he concluded that the seafloor was covered with a thick layer of ice. Peron ignored the fact that water expands when it freezes and that ice therefore floats. A more popular belief at the time was that water at great depth would be compressed to such a density that nothing could sink through it. This ignored the fact that water is all but incompressible. But even the more sensible naturalists of the day were guilty of a similar misconception. They imagined the deep sea as being filled with an unmoving and undisturbable pool of cold, dense water. In reality the deep is always being refreshed by cold water sinking from above.
The central implication of all these misconceptions was that nothing could live in the abyss (deep), just as Forbes's observations seemed to indicate. But Forbes erred in two ways. One was the particular study site he happened to use as a springboard for his sweeping postulate of a lifeless abyss. Although the Aegean had been the birthplace of marine biology, its depths are now known to be exceptionally lacking in animal diversity. Moreover, through no fault of his own, Forbes was not particularly successful at sampling such life as did exist at the bottom of the Aegean. It was his dredge that was inadequate. Its opening was so small and the holes in the net so large that the dredge inevitably missed animals. Many of those it did catch must have poured out of its open mouth when Forbes reeled it in. His azoic zone, then, was a plausible but wild extrapolation from pioneering but feeble data.
As it turned out, the existence of the azoic zone had been disproved even before Forbes suggested it, and the theory continued to be contradicted regularly throughout its long and influential life. Searching for the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 1818, Sir John Ross had lowered his "deep-sea clam"-a sort of bivalved sediment scoop-into the water of Baffin Bay ( an inlet between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans), which the determined to be more than a thousand fathoms deep in some places. Modern soundings indicate he overestimated his depths by several hundred fathoms, but in any case Ross's clam dove several times deeper than Forbes's dredge. It brought back mud laced with worms, and starfish that dad entangled themselves in the line at depths well below the supposed boundary of the azoic zone. | 3431.txt | 2 |
[
"surprisingly",
"extraordinarily",
"frequently",
"specifically"
] | The word "exceptionally" in the passage is closet in meaning to | In 1841 Edward Forbes was offered the chance to serve as naturalist aboard HMS Beacon, an English Royal Navy ship assigned to survey the Aegean Sea. For a year and a half the Beacon crisscrossed the Aegean waters. During that time Forbes was able to drag this small, triangular dregdge - a tool with a leather net for capturing creatures along the sea bottom - at a hundred locations, at depths ranging from 6 to 1380 feet. He collected hundreds of different species of animals, and he saw that they were distributed in eight different depth zones, each containing its own distinct assemblage of animal life, the way zones of elevation on the side of a mountain are populated by distinct sets of plants.
Forbes also thought he saw, as he later told the British Association, that "the number of species and individuals diminishes as we descend, pointing to a zero in the distribution of animal life as yet unvisited." This zero, Forbes casually speculated-he simply extended a line on his graph of animal number versus depth-probably began at a depth of 1,800 feet. Below that was the final zone in Forbes's scheme, zone nine, a zone that covered most of the ocean floor and thus most of the solid surface of Earth: Forbes called this the azoic zone, where no animal, to say nothing of plants, could survive.
Forbes's azoic zone was entirely plausible at the time, and it was certainly far from the strangest idea that was then entertained about the deep sea. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, a French naturalist named Francois Peron had sailed around the world measuring the temperature of the ocean. He found that the deeper the water, the colder it got, and he concluded that the seafloor was covered with a thick layer of ice. Peron ignored the fact that water expands when it freezes and that ice therefore floats. A more popular belief at the time was that water at great depth would be compressed to such a density that nothing could sink through it. This ignored the fact that water is all but incompressible. But even the more sensible naturalists of the day were guilty of a similar misconception. They imagined the deep sea as being filled with an unmoving and undisturbable pool of cold, dense water. In reality the deep is always being refreshed by cold water sinking from above.
The central implication of all these misconceptions was that nothing could live in the abyss (deep), just as Forbes's observations seemed to indicate. But Forbes erred in two ways. One was the particular study site he happened to use as a springboard for his sweeping postulate of a lifeless abyss. Although the Aegean had been the birthplace of marine biology, its depths are now known to be exceptionally lacking in animal diversity. Moreover, through no fault of his own, Forbes was not particularly successful at sampling such life as did exist at the bottom of the Aegean. It was his dredge that was inadequate. Its opening was so small and the holes in the net so large that the dredge inevitably missed animals. Many of those it did catch must have poured out of its open mouth when Forbes reeled it in. His azoic zone, then, was a plausible but wild extrapolation from pioneering but feeble data.
As it turned out, the existence of the azoic zone had been disproved even before Forbes suggested it, and the theory continued to be contradicted regularly throughout its long and influential life. Searching for the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 1818, Sir John Ross had lowered his "deep-sea clam"-a sort of bivalved sediment scoop-into the water of Baffin Bay ( an inlet between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans), which the determined to be more than a thousand fathoms deep in some places. Modern soundings indicate he overestimated his depths by several hundred fathoms, but in any case Ross's clam dove several times deeper than Forbes's dredge. It brought back mud laced with worms, and starfish that dad entangled themselves in the line at depths well below the supposed boundary of the azoic zone. | 3431.txt | 1 |
[
"They were all based on Forbes's observations.",
"They all challenged Forbes's theory.",
"They all presented the deep sea as lifeless.",
"They all underestimated the depth of the sea."
] | According to paragraph 4, what did all the ideas about the deep sea discussed in paragraph 3 have in common? | In 1841 Edward Forbes was offered the chance to serve as naturalist aboard HMS Beacon, an English Royal Navy ship assigned to survey the Aegean Sea. For a year and a half the Beacon crisscrossed the Aegean waters. During that time Forbes was able to drag this small, triangular dregdge - a tool with a leather net for capturing creatures along the sea bottom - at a hundred locations, at depths ranging from 6 to 1380 feet. He collected hundreds of different species of animals, and he saw that they were distributed in eight different depth zones, each containing its own distinct assemblage of animal life, the way zones of elevation on the side of a mountain are populated by distinct sets of plants.
Forbes also thought he saw, as he later told the British Association, that "the number of species and individuals diminishes as we descend, pointing to a zero in the distribution of animal life as yet unvisited." This zero, Forbes casually speculated-he simply extended a line on his graph of animal number versus depth-probably began at a depth of 1,800 feet. Below that was the final zone in Forbes's scheme, zone nine, a zone that covered most of the ocean floor and thus most of the solid surface of Earth: Forbes called this the azoic zone, where no animal, to say nothing of plants, could survive.
Forbes's azoic zone was entirely plausible at the time, and it was certainly far from the strangest idea that was then entertained about the deep sea. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, a French naturalist named Francois Peron had sailed around the world measuring the temperature of the ocean. He found that the deeper the water, the colder it got, and he concluded that the seafloor was covered with a thick layer of ice. Peron ignored the fact that water expands when it freezes and that ice therefore floats. A more popular belief at the time was that water at great depth would be compressed to such a density that nothing could sink through it. This ignored the fact that water is all but incompressible. But even the more sensible naturalists of the day were guilty of a similar misconception. They imagined the deep sea as being filled with an unmoving and undisturbable pool of cold, dense water. In reality the deep is always being refreshed by cold water sinking from above.
The central implication of all these misconceptions was that nothing could live in the abyss (deep), just as Forbes's observations seemed to indicate. But Forbes erred in two ways. One was the particular study site he happened to use as a springboard for his sweeping postulate of a lifeless abyss. Although the Aegean had been the birthplace of marine biology, its depths are now known to be exceptionally lacking in animal diversity. Moreover, through no fault of his own, Forbes was not particularly successful at sampling such life as did exist at the bottom of the Aegean. It was his dredge that was inadequate. Its opening was so small and the holes in the net so large that the dredge inevitably missed animals. Many of those it did catch must have poured out of its open mouth when Forbes reeled it in. His azoic zone, then, was a plausible but wild extrapolation from pioneering but feeble data.
As it turned out, the existence of the azoic zone had been disproved even before Forbes suggested it, and the theory continued to be contradicted regularly throughout its long and influential life. Searching for the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 1818, Sir John Ross had lowered his "deep-sea clam"-a sort of bivalved sediment scoop-into the water of Baffin Bay ( an inlet between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans), which the determined to be more than a thousand fathoms deep in some places. Modern soundings indicate he overestimated his depths by several hundred fathoms, but in any case Ross's clam dove several times deeper than Forbes's dredge. It brought back mud laced with worms, and starfish that dad entangled themselves in the line at depths well below the supposed boundary of the azoic zone. | 3431.txt | 2 |
[
"He assumed that Aegean's depths and other oceans' depths had comparable animal diversity.",
"He placed too much importance on the fact the Aegean had been the birthplace of marine biology.",
"He failed to notice that his samples of marine life mostly came from the sea bottom and were not typical of life-forms at higher levels.",
"He did not realize that the seafloor in many parts of Earth is much deeper than it is in Aegean."
] | According to paragraph 4, what was one mistake that Forbes made? | In 1841 Edward Forbes was offered the chance to serve as naturalist aboard HMS Beacon, an English Royal Navy ship assigned to survey the Aegean Sea. For a year and a half the Beacon crisscrossed the Aegean waters. During that time Forbes was able to drag this small, triangular dregdge - a tool with a leather net for capturing creatures along the sea bottom - at a hundred locations, at depths ranging from 6 to 1380 feet. He collected hundreds of different species of animals, and he saw that they were distributed in eight different depth zones, each containing its own distinct assemblage of animal life, the way zones of elevation on the side of a mountain are populated by distinct sets of plants.
Forbes also thought he saw, as he later told the British Association, that "the number of species and individuals diminishes as we descend, pointing to a zero in the distribution of animal life as yet unvisited." This zero, Forbes casually speculated-he simply extended a line on his graph of animal number versus depth-probably began at a depth of 1,800 feet. Below that was the final zone in Forbes's scheme, zone nine, a zone that covered most of the ocean floor and thus most of the solid surface of Earth: Forbes called this the azoic zone, where no animal, to say nothing of plants, could survive.
Forbes's azoic zone was entirely plausible at the time, and it was certainly far from the strangest idea that was then entertained about the deep sea. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, a French naturalist named Francois Peron had sailed around the world measuring the temperature of the ocean. He found that the deeper the water, the colder it got, and he concluded that the seafloor was covered with a thick layer of ice. Peron ignored the fact that water expands when it freezes and that ice therefore floats. A more popular belief at the time was that water at great depth would be compressed to such a density that nothing could sink through it. This ignored the fact that water is all but incompressible. But even the more sensible naturalists of the day were guilty of a similar misconception. They imagined the deep sea as being filled with an unmoving and undisturbable pool of cold, dense water. In reality the deep is always being refreshed by cold water sinking from above.
The central implication of all these misconceptions was that nothing could live in the abyss (deep), just as Forbes's observations seemed to indicate. But Forbes erred in two ways. One was the particular study site he happened to use as a springboard for his sweeping postulate of a lifeless abyss. Although the Aegean had been the birthplace of marine biology, its depths are now known to be exceptionally lacking in animal diversity. Moreover, through no fault of his own, Forbes was not particularly successful at sampling such life as did exist at the bottom of the Aegean. It was his dredge that was inadequate. Its opening was so small and the holes in the net so large that the dredge inevitably missed animals. Many of those it did catch must have poured out of its open mouth when Forbes reeled it in. His azoic zone, then, was a plausible but wild extrapolation from pioneering but feeble data.
As it turned out, the existence of the azoic zone had been disproved even before Forbes suggested it, and the theory continued to be contradicted regularly throughout its long and influential life. Searching for the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 1818, Sir John Ross had lowered his "deep-sea clam"-a sort of bivalved sediment scoop-into the water of Baffin Bay ( an inlet between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans), which the determined to be more than a thousand fathoms deep in some places. Modern soundings indicate he overestimated his depths by several hundred fathoms, but in any case Ross's clam dove several times deeper than Forbes's dredge. It brought back mud laced with worms, and starfish that dad entangled themselves in the line at depths well below the supposed boundary of the azoic zone. | 3431.txt | 0 |
[
"It opening was too small to collect certain kinds of animals.",
"The holes in its net were so large that animals could escape through them.",
"It could not get all the way down to the Aegean seafloor to sample the animals there.",
"Many animals were lost out of its open mouth when it was pulled up."
] | According to paragraph 4, Forbes's dredge had each of the following problems EXCEPT: | In 1841 Edward Forbes was offered the chance to serve as naturalist aboard HMS Beacon, an English Royal Navy ship assigned to survey the Aegean Sea. For a year and a half the Beacon crisscrossed the Aegean waters. During that time Forbes was able to drag this small, triangular dregdge - a tool with a leather net for capturing creatures along the sea bottom - at a hundred locations, at depths ranging from 6 to 1380 feet. He collected hundreds of different species of animals, and he saw that they were distributed in eight different depth zones, each containing its own distinct assemblage of animal life, the way zones of elevation on the side of a mountain are populated by distinct sets of plants.
Forbes also thought he saw, as he later told the British Association, that "the number of species and individuals diminishes as we descend, pointing to a zero in the distribution of animal life as yet unvisited." This zero, Forbes casually speculated-he simply extended a line on his graph of animal number versus depth-probably began at a depth of 1,800 feet. Below that was the final zone in Forbes's scheme, zone nine, a zone that covered most of the ocean floor and thus most of the solid surface of Earth: Forbes called this the azoic zone, where no animal, to say nothing of plants, could survive.
Forbes's azoic zone was entirely plausible at the time, and it was certainly far from the strangest idea that was then entertained about the deep sea. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, a French naturalist named Francois Peron had sailed around the world measuring the temperature of the ocean. He found that the deeper the water, the colder it got, and he concluded that the seafloor was covered with a thick layer of ice. Peron ignored the fact that water expands when it freezes and that ice therefore floats. A more popular belief at the time was that water at great depth would be compressed to such a density that nothing could sink through it. This ignored the fact that water is all but incompressible. But even the more sensible naturalists of the day were guilty of a similar misconception. They imagined the deep sea as being filled with an unmoving and undisturbable pool of cold, dense water. In reality the deep is always being refreshed by cold water sinking from above.
The central implication of all these misconceptions was that nothing could live in the abyss (deep), just as Forbes's observations seemed to indicate. But Forbes erred in two ways. One was the particular study site he happened to use as a springboard for his sweeping postulate of a lifeless abyss. Although the Aegean had been the birthplace of marine biology, its depths are now known to be exceptionally lacking in animal diversity. Moreover, through no fault of his own, Forbes was not particularly successful at sampling such life as did exist at the bottom of the Aegean. It was his dredge that was inadequate. Its opening was so small and the holes in the net so large that the dredge inevitably missed animals. Many of those it did catch must have poured out of its open mouth when Forbes reeled it in. His azoic zone, then, was a plausible but wild extrapolation from pioneering but feeble data.
As it turned out, the existence of the azoic zone had been disproved even before Forbes suggested it, and the theory continued to be contradicted regularly throughout its long and influential life. Searching for the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 1818, Sir John Ross had lowered his "deep-sea clam"-a sort of bivalved sediment scoop-into the water of Baffin Bay ( an inlet between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans), which the determined to be more than a thousand fathoms deep in some places. Modern soundings indicate he overestimated his depths by several hundred fathoms, but in any case Ross's clam dove several times deeper than Forbes's dredge. It brought back mud laced with worms, and starfish that dad entangled themselves in the line at depths well below the supposed boundary of the azoic zone. | 3431.txt | 2 |
[
"frequently",
"necessarily",
"unpredictably",
"unfortunately"
] | The word "inevitably" in the passage is closet in meaning to | In 1841 Edward Forbes was offered the chance to serve as naturalist aboard HMS Beacon, an English Royal Navy ship assigned to survey the Aegean Sea. For a year and a half the Beacon crisscrossed the Aegean waters. During that time Forbes was able to drag this small, triangular dregdge - a tool with a leather net for capturing creatures along the sea bottom - at a hundred locations, at depths ranging from 6 to 1380 feet. He collected hundreds of different species of animals, and he saw that they were distributed in eight different depth zones, each containing its own distinct assemblage of animal life, the way zones of elevation on the side of a mountain are populated by distinct sets of plants.
Forbes also thought he saw, as he later told the British Association, that "the number of species and individuals diminishes as we descend, pointing to a zero in the distribution of animal life as yet unvisited." This zero, Forbes casually speculated-he simply extended a line on his graph of animal number versus depth-probably began at a depth of 1,800 feet. Below that was the final zone in Forbes's scheme, zone nine, a zone that covered most of the ocean floor and thus most of the solid surface of Earth: Forbes called this the azoic zone, where no animal, to say nothing of plants, could survive.
Forbes's azoic zone was entirely plausible at the time, and it was certainly far from the strangest idea that was then entertained about the deep sea. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, a French naturalist named Francois Peron had sailed around the world measuring the temperature of the ocean. He found that the deeper the water, the colder it got, and he concluded that the seafloor was covered with a thick layer of ice. Peron ignored the fact that water expands when it freezes and that ice therefore floats. A more popular belief at the time was that water at great depth would be compressed to such a density that nothing could sink through it. This ignored the fact that water is all but incompressible. But even the more sensible naturalists of the day were guilty of a similar misconception. They imagined the deep sea as being filled with an unmoving and undisturbable pool of cold, dense water. In reality the deep is always being refreshed by cold water sinking from above.
The central implication of all these misconceptions was that nothing could live in the abyss (deep), just as Forbes's observations seemed to indicate. But Forbes erred in two ways. One was the particular study site he happened to use as a springboard for his sweeping postulate of a lifeless abyss. Although the Aegean had been the birthplace of marine biology, its depths are now known to be exceptionally lacking in animal diversity. Moreover, through no fault of his own, Forbes was not particularly successful at sampling such life as did exist at the bottom of the Aegean. It was his dredge that was inadequate. Its opening was so small and the holes in the net so large that the dredge inevitably missed animals. Many of those it did catch must have poured out of its open mouth when Forbes reeled it in. His azoic zone, then, was a plausible but wild extrapolation from pioneering but feeble data.
As it turned out, the existence of the azoic zone had been disproved even before Forbes suggested it, and the theory continued to be contradicted regularly throughout its long and influential life. Searching for the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 1818, Sir John Ross had lowered his "deep-sea clam"-a sort of bivalved sediment scoop-into the water of Baffin Bay ( an inlet between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans), which the determined to be more than a thousand fathoms deep in some places. Modern soundings indicate he overestimated his depths by several hundred fathoms, but in any case Ross's clam dove several times deeper than Forbes's dredge. It brought back mud laced with worms, and starfish that dad entangled themselves in the line at depths well below the supposed boundary of the azoic zone. | 3431.txt | 1 |
[
"Forbes got the idea for his dredge from Ross's deep-sea clam.",
"Forbes did not know about the discoveries Ross had made in Baffin Bay with help of his deep-sea clam.",
"Forbes carried out his investigations in the Aegean partly to disprove Ross's theory about the possibility of life in a abyss.",
"Forbes overestimated the depths of the seas and oceans he studied while Ross's calculations were as accurate as those provided by modern soundings."
] | Paragraph 5 strongly suggests which of the following about Forbes and Ross? | In 1841 Edward Forbes was offered the chance to serve as naturalist aboard HMS Beacon, an English Royal Navy ship assigned to survey the Aegean Sea. For a year and a half the Beacon crisscrossed the Aegean waters. During that time Forbes was able to drag this small, triangular dregdge - a tool with a leather net for capturing creatures along the sea bottom - at a hundred locations, at depths ranging from 6 to 1380 feet. He collected hundreds of different species of animals, and he saw that they were distributed in eight different depth zones, each containing its own distinct assemblage of animal life, the way zones of elevation on the side of a mountain are populated by distinct sets of plants.
Forbes also thought he saw, as he later told the British Association, that "the number of species and individuals diminishes as we descend, pointing to a zero in the distribution of animal life as yet unvisited." This zero, Forbes casually speculated-he simply extended a line on his graph of animal number versus depth-probably began at a depth of 1,800 feet. Below that was the final zone in Forbes's scheme, zone nine, a zone that covered most of the ocean floor and thus most of the solid surface of Earth: Forbes called this the azoic zone, where no animal, to say nothing of plants, could survive.
Forbes's azoic zone was entirely plausible at the time, and it was certainly far from the strangest idea that was then entertained about the deep sea. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, a French naturalist named Francois Peron had sailed around the world measuring the temperature of the ocean. He found that the deeper the water, the colder it got, and he concluded that the seafloor was covered with a thick layer of ice. Peron ignored the fact that water expands when it freezes and that ice therefore floats. A more popular belief at the time was that water at great depth would be compressed to such a density that nothing could sink through it. This ignored the fact that water is all but incompressible. But even the more sensible naturalists of the day were guilty of a similar misconception. They imagined the deep sea as being filled with an unmoving and undisturbable pool of cold, dense water. In reality the deep is always being refreshed by cold water sinking from above.
The central implication of all these misconceptions was that nothing could live in the abyss (deep), just as Forbes's observations seemed to indicate. But Forbes erred in two ways. One was the particular study site he happened to use as a springboard for his sweeping postulate of a lifeless abyss. Although the Aegean had been the birthplace of marine biology, its depths are now known to be exceptionally lacking in animal diversity. Moreover, through no fault of his own, Forbes was not particularly successful at sampling such life as did exist at the bottom of the Aegean. It was his dredge that was inadequate. Its opening was so small and the holes in the net so large that the dredge inevitably missed animals. Many of those it did catch must have poured out of its open mouth when Forbes reeled it in. His azoic zone, then, was a plausible but wild extrapolation from pioneering but feeble data.
As it turned out, the existence of the azoic zone had been disproved even before Forbes suggested it, and the theory continued to be contradicted regularly throughout its long and influential life. Searching for the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 1818, Sir John Ross had lowered his "deep-sea clam"-a sort of bivalved sediment scoop-into the water of Baffin Bay ( an inlet between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans), which the determined to be more than a thousand fathoms deep in some places. Modern soundings indicate he overestimated his depths by several hundred fathoms, but in any case Ross's clam dove several times deeper than Forbes's dredge. It brought back mud laced with worms, and starfish that dad entangled themselves in the line at depths well below the supposed boundary of the azoic zone. | 3431.txt | 1 |
[
"stayed at eighty",
"ranged from eighty to ninety",
"approached one hundred",
"exceeded the hundred mark"
] | In the British Isles the temperature . | A mysteriousblack cloudapproaches the earth-our planet's weather is severely affected.
Throughout the rest of June and July temperatures rose steadily all over the Earth. In the British isles the temperature climbed through the eighties, into the nineties, and moved towards the hundred mark. People complained, but there was no serious disaster.
The death number in the U. S. Remained quite small, thanks largely to the air-conditioning units that had been fitted during previous years and months. Temperatures rose to the limit of human endurance throughout the whole country and people were obliged to remain indoors for weeks on end. Occasionally air-conditioning units failed and it was then that fatalities occurred.
Conditions were utterly desperate throughout the tropics as may be judged from the fact that 7943 species of plants and animals became totally extinct. The survival of Man himself was only possible because of the caves and cellars he was able to dig. Nothing could be done to reduce the hot air temperature. More than seven hundred million persons are known to have lost their lives.
Eventually the temperature of the surface waters of the sea rose, not so fast as the air temperature it is true, but fast enough to produce a dangerous increase of humidity . It was indeed this increase that produced the disastrous conditions just remarked. Millions of people between the latitudes of Cairo and the Cape of Good Hope were subjected to a choking atmosphere that grew damper and hotter from day to day. All human movement ceased. There was nothing to be done but to lie breathing quickly as a dog does in hot weather.
By the fourth week of July conditions in the tropics lay balanced between life and total death. Then quite suddenly rain clouds appeared over the whole globe. The temperature declined a little, due no doubt to the clouds reflecting more of the Sun's radiation back into space, But conditions could not be said to have improved. Warm rain fell everywhere, even as far north as Iceland. The insect population increased enormously, since the burning hot atmosphere was as favorable to them as it was unfavorable to Man many other animals. | 1820.txt | 2 |
[
"the temperature was tolerable",
"people remained indoors for weeks",
"the government had taken effective measures to reduce the hot temperature",
"people were provided with the most comfortable air-conditioners"
] | Few people in the United States lost their lives because . | A mysteriousblack cloudapproaches the earth-our planet's weather is severely affected.
Throughout the rest of June and July temperatures rose steadily all over the Earth. In the British isles the temperature climbed through the eighties, into the nineties, and moved towards the hundred mark. People complained, but there was no serious disaster.
The death number in the U. S. Remained quite small, thanks largely to the air-conditioning units that had been fitted during previous years and months. Temperatures rose to the limit of human endurance throughout the whole country and people were obliged to remain indoors for weeks on end. Occasionally air-conditioning units failed and it was then that fatalities occurred.
Conditions were utterly desperate throughout the tropics as may be judged from the fact that 7943 species of plants and animals became totally extinct. The survival of Man himself was only possible because of the caves and cellars he was able to dig. Nothing could be done to reduce the hot air temperature. More than seven hundred million persons are known to have lost their lives.
Eventually the temperature of the surface waters of the sea rose, not so fast as the air temperature it is true, but fast enough to produce a dangerous increase of humidity . It was indeed this increase that produced the disastrous conditions just remarked. Millions of people between the latitudes of Cairo and the Cape of Good Hope were subjected to a choking atmosphere that grew damper and hotter from day to day. All human movement ceased. There was nothing to be done but to lie breathing quickly as a dog does in hot weather.
By the fourth week of July conditions in the tropics lay balanced between life and total death. Then quite suddenly rain clouds appeared over the whole globe. The temperature declined a little, due no doubt to the clouds reflecting more of the Sun's radiation back into space, But conditions could not be said to have improved. Warm rain fell everywhere, even as far north as Iceland. The insect population increased enormously, since the burning hot atmosphere was as favorable to them as it was unfavorable to Man many other animals. | 1820.txt | 3 |
[
"the temperature grew extremely hot",
"the temperature became damper and hotter as the humidity of the surface waters of the sea increased",
"their conditions were too dangerous",
"nothing could be done with the hot temperature"
] | Millions of people in Cairoand the Cape of Good Hopewere subjected to a choking atmosphere because . | A mysteriousblack cloudapproaches the earth-our planet's weather is severely affected.
Throughout the rest of June and July temperatures rose steadily all over the Earth. In the British isles the temperature climbed through the eighties, into the nineties, and moved towards the hundred mark. People complained, but there was no serious disaster.
The death number in the U. S. Remained quite small, thanks largely to the air-conditioning units that had been fitted during previous years and months. Temperatures rose to the limit of human endurance throughout the whole country and people were obliged to remain indoors for weeks on end. Occasionally air-conditioning units failed and it was then that fatalities occurred.
Conditions were utterly desperate throughout the tropics as may be judged from the fact that 7943 species of plants and animals became totally extinct. The survival of Man himself was only possible because of the caves and cellars he was able to dig. Nothing could be done to reduce the hot air temperature. More than seven hundred million persons are known to have lost their lives.
Eventually the temperature of the surface waters of the sea rose, not so fast as the air temperature it is true, but fast enough to produce a dangerous increase of humidity . It was indeed this increase that produced the disastrous conditions just remarked. Millions of people between the latitudes of Cairo and the Cape of Good Hope were subjected to a choking atmosphere that grew damper and hotter from day to day. All human movement ceased. There was nothing to be done but to lie breathing quickly as a dog does in hot weather.
By the fourth week of July conditions in the tropics lay balanced between life and total death. Then quite suddenly rain clouds appeared over the whole globe. The temperature declined a little, due no doubt to the clouds reflecting more of the Sun's radiation back into space, But conditions could not be said to have improved. Warm rain fell everywhere, even as far north as Iceland. The insect population increased enormously, since the burning hot atmosphere was as favorable to them as it was unfavorable to Man many other animals. | 1820.txt | 1 |
[
"human survival would be impossible",
"more and more people would lose their lives",
"fewer people could be saved",
"survival or death was still undecided"
] | By the fourth week of July conditions in the tropics were such that . | A mysteriousblack cloudapproaches the earth-our planet's weather is severely affected.
Throughout the rest of June and July temperatures rose steadily all over the Earth. In the British isles the temperature climbed through the eighties, into the nineties, and moved towards the hundred mark. People complained, but there was no serious disaster.
The death number in the U. S. Remained quite small, thanks largely to the air-conditioning units that had been fitted during previous years and months. Temperatures rose to the limit of human endurance throughout the whole country and people were obliged to remain indoors for weeks on end. Occasionally air-conditioning units failed and it was then that fatalities occurred.
Conditions were utterly desperate throughout the tropics as may be judged from the fact that 7943 species of plants and animals became totally extinct. The survival of Man himself was only possible because of the caves and cellars he was able to dig. Nothing could be done to reduce the hot air temperature. More than seven hundred million persons are known to have lost their lives.
Eventually the temperature of the surface waters of the sea rose, not so fast as the air temperature it is true, but fast enough to produce a dangerous increase of humidity . It was indeed this increase that produced the disastrous conditions just remarked. Millions of people between the latitudes of Cairo and the Cape of Good Hope were subjected to a choking atmosphere that grew damper and hotter from day to day. All human movement ceased. There was nothing to be done but to lie breathing quickly as a dog does in hot weather.
By the fourth week of July conditions in the tropics lay balanced between life and total death. Then quite suddenly rain clouds appeared over the whole globe. The temperature declined a little, due no doubt to the clouds reflecting more of the Sun's radiation back into space, But conditions could not be said to have improved. Warm rain fell everywhere, even as far north as Iceland. The insect population increased enormously, since the burning hot atmosphere was as favorable to them as it was unfavorable to Man many other animals. | 1820.txt | 3 |
[
"the hot air",
"the tropical climate",
"the rain clouds",
"the damp atmosphere"
] | The insect population increased due to . | A mysteriousblack cloudapproaches the earth-our planet's weather is severely affected.
Throughout the rest of June and July temperatures rose steadily all over the Earth. In the British isles the temperature climbed through the eighties, into the nineties, and moved towards the hundred mark. People complained, but there was no serious disaster.
The death number in the U. S. Remained quite small, thanks largely to the air-conditioning units that had been fitted during previous years and months. Temperatures rose to the limit of human endurance throughout the whole country and people were obliged to remain indoors for weeks on end. Occasionally air-conditioning units failed and it was then that fatalities occurred.
Conditions were utterly desperate throughout the tropics as may be judged from the fact that 7943 species of plants and animals became totally extinct. The survival of Man himself was only possible because of the caves and cellars he was able to dig. Nothing could be done to reduce the hot air temperature. More than seven hundred million persons are known to have lost their lives.
Eventually the temperature of the surface waters of the sea rose, not so fast as the air temperature it is true, but fast enough to produce a dangerous increase of humidity . It was indeed this increase that produced the disastrous conditions just remarked. Millions of people between the latitudes of Cairo and the Cape of Good Hope were subjected to a choking atmosphere that grew damper and hotter from day to day. All human movement ceased. There was nothing to be done but to lie breathing quickly as a dog does in hot weather.
By the fourth week of July conditions in the tropics lay balanced between life and total death. Then quite suddenly rain clouds appeared over the whole globe. The temperature declined a little, due no doubt to the clouds reflecting more of the Sun's radiation back into space, But conditions could not be said to have improved. Warm rain fell everywhere, even as far north as Iceland. The insect population increased enormously, since the burning hot atmosphere was as favorable to them as it was unfavorable to Man many other animals. | 1820.txt | 0 |
[
"1me US economic situation is going from bad to worse．",
"Washington is taking drastic measures to provide more jobs．",
"111e US government is slashing more jobs from its payrolls．",
"The recent economic crisis has taken the US by surprise．"
] | What d0 we learn from the first paragraph? | The report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was just as gloomy as anticipated．Unemployment in January jumped to a l6year high of 7．6 percent，as 598 000 jobs were slashed from US payrolls in the worst single-month decline since December，1974．With l．8 million iobs lost in the last three months． there is urgent desire to boost the economy as quickly as possible．But Washington would do well to take a deep breath before reacting to the grim numbers．
Collectively，we rely on the unemployment figures and other statistics to frame our sense of reality． They are a vital part of an array of data that we use to assess if we're doing well or doing badly，and that in turn shapes government policies and corporate budgets and personal spending decisions．The problem is that the statistics aren't an objective measure of reality；they are simply a best approximation． Directionally，they capture the trends，but the idea that we know precisely how many are unemployed is a myth．That makes finding a solution all the more difficult．
First，there is the way the data is assembled．The official unemployment rate is the product of a telephone survey of about 60 000 homes．There is another survey，sometimes referred to as the"payroll survey，"that assesses 400 000 businesses based on their reported payrolls．Both surveys have problems． The payroll survey can easily double-count someone：if you are one person with two jobs，you show up as two workers．The payroll survey also doesn't capture the number of self．employed，and so says little about how many people are generating an independent income．
The household survey has a larger problem．When asked straightforwardly，people tend to lie orshade the truth when the subject is sex，money or employment．If you get a call and are asked if you're employed．and you say yes，you're employed．If you say n0，however，it may surprise you to learn that．You are only unemployed if you've been actively looking for work in the past four weeks；otherwise，you are。marginally attached to the labor force"and not actually unemployed．
11le urge to quantify is embedded in our society．But the idea that statisticians can then capture an objective realin-im't just impossible．It also leads to serious misjudgments．Democrats and Republicans can and、"U take sides on a number of issues，but a more crucial concern is that both are basing major poticy decisions on guesstimates rather than looking at the vast wealth of raw data with a critical eye and an open mind． | 1583.txt | 0 |
[
"They form a solid basis for policy makin9．",
"The．y represent the current situation．",
"They signal future economic trend．",
"They do not fully reflect the reality．"
] | What does the author think of the unemployment figures and other statistics? | The report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was just as gloomy as anticipated．Unemployment in January jumped to a l6year high of 7．6 percent，as 598 000 jobs were slashed from US payrolls in the worst single-month decline since December，1974．With l．8 million iobs lost in the last three months． there is urgent desire to boost the economy as quickly as possible．But Washington would do well to take a deep breath before reacting to the grim numbers．
Collectively，we rely on the unemployment figures and other statistics to frame our sense of reality． They are a vital part of an array of data that we use to assess if we're doing well or doing badly，and that in turn shapes government policies and corporate budgets and personal spending decisions．The problem is that the statistics aren't an objective measure of reality；they are simply a best approximation． Directionally，they capture the trends，but the idea that we know precisely how many are unemployed is a myth．That makes finding a solution all the more difficult．
First，there is the way the data is assembled．The official unemployment rate is the product of a telephone survey of about 60 000 homes．There is another survey，sometimes referred to as the"payroll survey，"that assesses 400 000 businesses based on their reported payrolls．Both surveys have problems． The payroll survey can easily double-count someone：if you are one person with two jobs，you show up as two workers．The payroll survey also doesn't capture the number of self．employed，and so says little about how many people are generating an independent income．
The household survey has a larger problem．When asked straightforwardly，people tend to lie orshade the truth when the subject is sex，money or employment．If you get a call and are asked if you're employed．and you say yes，you're employed．If you say n0，however，it may surprise you to learn that．You are only unemployed if you've been actively looking for work in the past four weeks；otherwise，you are。marginally attached to the labor force"and not actually unemployed．
11le urge to quantify is embedded in our society．But the idea that statisticians can then capture an objective realin-im't just impossible．It also leads to serious misjudgments．Democrats and Republicans can and、"U take sides on a number of issues，but a more crucial concern is that both are basing major poticy decisions on guesstimates rather than looking at the vast wealth of raw data with a critical eye and an open mind． | 1583.txt | 3 |
[
"it does not include all the businesses",
"it fails to count in the self-employed",
"it magnifies the number of the jobless",
"it does not treat all companies equally"
] | One problem with the payroll survey is that________． | The report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was just as gloomy as anticipated．Unemployment in January jumped to a l6year high of 7．6 percent，as 598 000 jobs were slashed from US payrolls in the worst single-month decline since December，1974．With l．8 million iobs lost in the last three months． there is urgent desire to boost the economy as quickly as possible．But Washington would do well to take a deep breath before reacting to the grim numbers．
Collectively，we rely on the unemployment figures and other statistics to frame our sense of reality． They are a vital part of an array of data that we use to assess if we're doing well or doing badly，and that in turn shapes government policies and corporate budgets and personal spending decisions．The problem is that the statistics aren't an objective measure of reality；they are simply a best approximation． Directionally，they capture the trends，but the idea that we know precisely how many are unemployed is a myth．That makes finding a solution all the more difficult．
First，there is the way the data is assembled．The official unemployment rate is the product of a telephone survey of about 60 000 homes．There is another survey，sometimes referred to as the"payroll survey，"that assesses 400 000 businesses based on their reported payrolls．Both surveys have problems． The payroll survey can easily double-count someone：if you are one person with two jobs，you show up as two workers．The payroll survey also doesn't capture the number of self．employed，and so says little about how many people are generating an independent income．
The household survey has a larger problem．When asked straightforwardly，people tend to lie orshade the truth when the subject is sex，money or employment．If you get a call and are asked if you're employed．and you say yes，you're employed．If you say n0，however，it may surprise you to learn that．You are only unemployed if you've been actively looking for work in the past four weeks；otherwise，you are。marginally attached to the labor force"and not actually unemployed．
11le urge to quantify is embedded in our society．But the idea that statisticians can then capture an objective realin-im't just impossible．It also leads to serious misjudgments．Democrats and Republicans can and、"U take sides on a number of issues，but a more crucial concern is that both are basing major poticy decisions on guesstimates rather than looking at the vast wealth of raw data with a critical eye and an open mind． | 1583.txt | 1 |
[
"people tend to lie when talking on the phone",
"not everybody is willing or ready to respond",
"some people won't provide truthful information",
"the definition of unemployment is too broad"
] | 111e household survey can be faulty in that_________． | The report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was just as gloomy as anticipated．Unemployment in January jumped to a l6year high of 7．6 percent，as 598 000 jobs were slashed from US payrolls in the worst single-month decline since December，1974．With l．8 million iobs lost in the last three months． there is urgent desire to boost the economy as quickly as possible．But Washington would do well to take a deep breath before reacting to the grim numbers．
Collectively，we rely on the unemployment figures and other statistics to frame our sense of reality． They are a vital part of an array of data that we use to assess if we're doing well or doing badly，and that in turn shapes government policies and corporate budgets and personal spending decisions．The problem is that the statistics aren't an objective measure of reality；they are simply a best approximation． Directionally，they capture the trends，but the idea that we know precisely how many are unemployed is a myth．That makes finding a solution all the more difficult．
First，there is the way the data is assembled．The official unemployment rate is the product of a telephone survey of about 60 000 homes．There is another survey，sometimes referred to as the"payroll survey，"that assesses 400 000 businesses based on their reported payrolls．Both surveys have problems． The payroll survey can easily double-count someone：if you are one person with two jobs，you show up as two workers．The payroll survey also doesn't capture the number of self．employed，and so says little about how many people are generating an independent income．
The household survey has a larger problem．When asked straightforwardly，people tend to lie orshade the truth when the subject is sex，money or employment．If you get a call and are asked if you're employed．and you say yes，you're employed．If you say n0，however，it may surprise you to learn that．You are only unemployed if you've been actively looking for work in the past four weeks；otherwise，you are。marginally attached to the labor force"and not actually unemployed．
11le urge to quantify is embedded in our society．But the idea that statisticians can then capture an objective realin-im't just impossible．It also leads to serious misjudgments．Democrats and Republicans can and、"U take sides on a number of issues，but a more crucial concern is that both are basing major poticy decisions on guesstimates rather than looking at the vast wealth of raw data with a critical eye and an open mind． | 1583.txt | 2 |
[
"statisticians improve their data assembling methods",
"decision makers view the statistics with a critical eye",
"politicians listen more before making policy decisions",
"Democrats and Republicans cooperate on crucial issues"
] | At the end of the passage，the author suggests that_______． | The report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was just as gloomy as anticipated．Unemployment in January jumped to a l6year high of 7．6 percent，as 598 000 jobs were slashed from US payrolls in the worst single-month decline since December，1974．With l．8 million iobs lost in the last three months． there is urgent desire to boost the economy as quickly as possible．But Washington would do well to take a deep breath before reacting to the grim numbers．
Collectively，we rely on the unemployment figures and other statistics to frame our sense of reality． They are a vital part of an array of data that we use to assess if we're doing well or doing badly，and that in turn shapes government policies and corporate budgets and personal spending decisions．The problem is that the statistics aren't an objective measure of reality；they are simply a best approximation． Directionally，they capture the trends，but the idea that we know precisely how many are unemployed is a myth．That makes finding a solution all the more difficult．
First，there is the way the data is assembled．The official unemployment rate is the product of a telephone survey of about 60 000 homes．There is another survey，sometimes referred to as the"payroll survey，"that assesses 400 000 businesses based on their reported payrolls．Both surveys have problems． The payroll survey can easily double-count someone：if you are one person with two jobs，you show up as two workers．The payroll survey also doesn't capture the number of self．employed，and so says little about how many people are generating an independent income．
The household survey has a larger problem．When asked straightforwardly，people tend to lie orshade the truth when the subject is sex，money or employment．If you get a call and are asked if you're employed．and you say yes，you're employed．If you say n0，however，it may surprise you to learn that．You are only unemployed if you've been actively looking for work in the past four weeks；otherwise，you are。marginally attached to the labor force"and not actually unemployed．
11le urge to quantify is embedded in our society．But the idea that statisticians can then capture an objective realin-im't just impossible．It also leads to serious misjudgments．Democrats and Republicans can and、"U take sides on a number of issues，but a more crucial concern is that both are basing major poticy decisions on guesstimates rather than looking at the vast wealth of raw data with a critical eye and an open mind． | 1583.txt | 1 |
[
"cause a shortage of apartments",
"worry those who rent apartments as homes",
"increase the profits of landlords",
"encourage landlords to invest in building apartment"
] | There is the possibility that setting maximum rent may _ . | In cities with rent control, the city government sets the maximum rent that a landlord can charge for an apartment. Supporters of rent control argue that it protects people who are living in apartments. Their rent cannot increase; therefore, they are not in danger of losing their homes. However, the critics say that after a long time, rent control may have negative effects. Landlords know that they cannot increase their profits. Therefore, they invest in other businesses where they can increase their profits. They do not invest in new buildings which could also be rent-controlled. As a result, new apartments are not built. Many people who need apartments cannot find any. According to the critics, the end result of rent control is a shortage of apartment in the city.
Some theorists argue that the minimum wage law can cause problems in the same way. The federal government sets the minimum that an employer must pay workers. The minimum helps people who generally look for unskilled, low-paid jobs. However, if the minimum is high, employers may hire fewer workers. They will replace workers with machinery. The price, which is the wage that employers must pay, increases. Therefore, other things being equal, the number of workers that employers want decreases. Thus, critics claim, an increase in the minimum wage may cause unemployment. Some poor people may find themselves without jobs instead of with jobs at the minimum wage.
Supporters of the minimum wage say that it helps people keep their dignity. Because of the law, workers cannot sell their services for less than the minimum. Furthermore, employers cannot force workers to accept jobs at unfair wages.
Economic theory predicts the results of economic decisions such as decisions about farm production, rent control, and the minimum wage. The predictions may be correct only if " other things are equal" . Economists do not agree on some of the predictions. They also do not agree on the value of different decisions. Some economists support a particular decision while others criticize it. Economists do agree, however, that there are no simple answers to economic questions. | 425.txt | 0 |
[
"will always benefit those who rent apartments",
"is unnecessary",
"will bring negative effects in the long run",
"is necessary under all circumstances"
] | According to the critics, rent control _ . | In cities with rent control, the city government sets the maximum rent that a landlord can charge for an apartment. Supporters of rent control argue that it protects people who are living in apartments. Their rent cannot increase; therefore, they are not in danger of losing their homes. However, the critics say that after a long time, rent control may have negative effects. Landlords know that they cannot increase their profits. Therefore, they invest in other businesses where they can increase their profits. They do not invest in new buildings which could also be rent-controlled. As a result, new apartments are not built. Many people who need apartments cannot find any. According to the critics, the end result of rent control is a shortage of apartment in the city.
Some theorists argue that the minimum wage law can cause problems in the same way. The federal government sets the minimum that an employer must pay workers. The minimum helps people who generally look for unskilled, low-paid jobs. However, if the minimum is high, employers may hire fewer workers. They will replace workers with machinery. The price, which is the wage that employers must pay, increases. Therefore, other things being equal, the number of workers that employers want decreases. Thus, critics claim, an increase in the minimum wage may cause unemployment. Some poor people may find themselves without jobs instead of with jobs at the minimum wage.
Supporters of the minimum wage say that it helps people keep their dignity. Because of the law, workers cannot sell their services for less than the minimum. Furthermore, employers cannot force workers to accept jobs at unfair wages.
Economic theory predicts the results of economic decisions such as decisions about farm production, rent control, and the minimum wage. The predictions may be correct only if " other things are equal" . Economists do not agree on some of the predictions. They also do not agree on the value of different decisions. Some economists support a particular decision while others criticize it. Economists do agree, however, that there are no simple answers to economic questions. | 425.txt | 2 |
[
"if the minimum wage is set too high",
"if the minimum wage is set too low",
"if the workers are unskilled",
"if the maximum wage is set"
] | The problem of unemployment will arise _ . | In cities with rent control, the city government sets the maximum rent that a landlord can charge for an apartment. Supporters of rent control argue that it protects people who are living in apartments. Their rent cannot increase; therefore, they are not in danger of losing their homes. However, the critics say that after a long time, rent control may have negative effects. Landlords know that they cannot increase their profits. Therefore, they invest in other businesses where they can increase their profits. They do not invest in new buildings which could also be rent-controlled. As a result, new apartments are not built. Many people who need apartments cannot find any. According to the critics, the end result of rent control is a shortage of apartment in the city.
Some theorists argue that the minimum wage law can cause problems in the same way. The federal government sets the minimum that an employer must pay workers. The minimum helps people who generally look for unskilled, low-paid jobs. However, if the minimum is high, employers may hire fewer workers. They will replace workers with machinery. The price, which is the wage that employers must pay, increases. Therefore, other things being equal, the number of workers that employers want decreases. Thus, critics claim, an increase in the minimum wage may cause unemployment. Some poor people may find themselves without jobs instead of with jobs at the minimum wage.
Supporters of the minimum wage say that it helps people keep their dignity. Because of the law, workers cannot sell their services for less than the minimum. Furthermore, employers cannot force workers to accept jobs at unfair wages.
Economic theory predicts the results of economic decisions such as decisions about farm production, rent control, and the minimum wage. The predictions may be correct only if " other things are equal" . Economists do not agree on some of the predictions. They also do not agree on the value of different decisions. Some economists support a particular decision while others criticize it. Economists do agree, however, that there are no simple answers to economic questions. | 425.txt | 0 |
[
"the relationship between supply and demand",
"the possible results of government controls",
"the necessity of government control",
"the urgency of getting rid of government controls"
] | The passage tells us _ . | In cities with rent control, the city government sets the maximum rent that a landlord can charge for an apartment. Supporters of rent control argue that it protects people who are living in apartments. Their rent cannot increase; therefore, they are not in danger of losing their homes. However, the critics say that after a long time, rent control may have negative effects. Landlords know that they cannot increase their profits. Therefore, they invest in other businesses where they can increase their profits. They do not invest in new buildings which could also be rent-controlled. As a result, new apartments are not built. Many people who need apartments cannot find any. According to the critics, the end result of rent control is a shortage of apartment in the city.
Some theorists argue that the minimum wage law can cause problems in the same way. The federal government sets the minimum that an employer must pay workers. The minimum helps people who generally look for unskilled, low-paid jobs. However, if the minimum is high, employers may hire fewer workers. They will replace workers with machinery. The price, which is the wage that employers must pay, increases. Therefore, other things being equal, the number of workers that employers want decreases. Thus, critics claim, an increase in the minimum wage may cause unemployment. Some poor people may find themselves without jobs instead of with jobs at the minimum wage.
Supporters of the minimum wage say that it helps people keep their dignity. Because of the law, workers cannot sell their services for less than the minimum. Furthermore, employers cannot force workers to accept jobs at unfair wages.
Economic theory predicts the results of economic decisions such as decisions about farm production, rent control, and the minimum wage. The predictions may be correct only if " other things are equal" . Economists do not agree on some of the predictions. They also do not agree on the value of different decisions. Some economists support a particular decision while others criticize it. Economists do agree, however, that there are no simple answers to economic questions. | 425.txt | 1 |
[
"The results of economic decisions can not always be predicted.",
"Minimum wage can not always protect employees.",
"Economic theory can predict the results of economic decision if other factors are not changing.",
"Economic decisions should not be based on economic theory."
] | Which of the following statement is NOT true? | In cities with rent control, the city government sets the maximum rent that a landlord can charge for an apartment. Supporters of rent control argue that it protects people who are living in apartments. Their rent cannot increase; therefore, they are not in danger of losing their homes. However, the critics say that after a long time, rent control may have negative effects. Landlords know that they cannot increase their profits. Therefore, they invest in other businesses where they can increase their profits. They do not invest in new buildings which could also be rent-controlled. As a result, new apartments are not built. Many people who need apartments cannot find any. According to the critics, the end result of rent control is a shortage of apartment in the city.
Some theorists argue that the minimum wage law can cause problems in the same way. The federal government sets the minimum that an employer must pay workers. The minimum helps people who generally look for unskilled, low-paid jobs. However, if the minimum is high, employers may hire fewer workers. They will replace workers with machinery. The price, which is the wage that employers must pay, increases. Therefore, other things being equal, the number of workers that employers want decreases. Thus, critics claim, an increase in the minimum wage may cause unemployment. Some poor people may find themselves without jobs instead of with jobs at the minimum wage.
Supporters of the minimum wage say that it helps people keep their dignity. Because of the law, workers cannot sell their services for less than the minimum. Furthermore, employers cannot force workers to accept jobs at unfair wages.
Economic theory predicts the results of economic decisions such as decisions about farm production, rent control, and the minimum wage. The predictions may be correct only if " other things are equal" . Economists do not agree on some of the predictions. They also do not agree on the value of different decisions. Some economists support a particular decision while others criticize it. Economists do agree, however, that there are no simple answers to economic questions. | 425.txt | 3 |
[
"keep ourselves busy",
"get absent-minded",
"grow anxious",
"stay focused"
] | While doing a Watched-Pot Wait, we tend to _ . | The very purest form of waiting is the Watched-Pot Wait. It is without doubt the most annoying of all. Take filling up the kitchen sink as an example. There is absolutely nothing you can do while this is going on but keep both eyes fixed on the sink until it's full. During these waits, the brain slips away from the body and wanders about until the water runs over the edge of the counter and onto your socks. This kind of wait makes the waiter helpless and mindless.
A cousin to the Watched-Pot Wait is the Forced Wait. This one requires a bit of discipline. Properly preparing packaged noodle soup requires a Forced Wait. Directions are very specific. "Bring three cups of water to boil, add mix, simmer three minutes, remove from heat, let stand five minutes."I have my doubts that anyone has actually followed the procedures strictly. After all, Forced Waiting requires patience.
Perhaps the most powerful type of waiting is the Lucky-Break Wait. This type of wait is unusual in that it is for the most part voluntary. Unlike the Forced Wait, which is also voluntary, waiting for your lucky break does not necessarily mean that it will happen.
Turning one's life into a waiting game requires faith and hope, and is strictly for the optimists among us. On the surface it seems as ridiculous as following the directions on soup mixes, but the Lucky-Break Wait well serves those who are willing to do it. As long as one doesn't come to rely on it, wishing for a few good things to happen never hurts anybody.
We certainly do spend a good deal of our time waiting. The next time you're standing at the sink waiting for it to fill while cooking noodle soup that you'll have to eat until a large bag of cash falls out of the sky, don't be desperate. You're probably just as busy as the next guy. | 3861.txt | 1 |
[
"The Forced Wait requires some self-control.",
"The Forced Wait makes people passive.",
"The Watched-Pot Wait needs directions.",
"The Watched-Pot Wait engages body and brain."
] | What is the difference between the Forced Wait and the Watched-Pot Wait?\ | The very purest form of waiting is the Watched-Pot Wait. It is without doubt the most annoying of all. Take filling up the kitchen sink as an example. There is absolutely nothing you can do while this is going on but keep both eyes fixed on the sink until it's full. During these waits, the brain slips away from the body and wanders about until the water runs over the edge of the counter and onto your socks. This kind of wait makes the waiter helpless and mindless.
A cousin to the Watched-Pot Wait is the Forced Wait. This one requires a bit of discipline. Properly preparing packaged noodle soup requires a Forced Wait. Directions are very specific. "Bring three cups of water to boil, add mix, simmer three minutes, remove from heat, let stand five minutes."I have my doubts that anyone has actually followed the procedures strictly. After all, Forced Waiting requires patience.
Perhaps the most powerful type of waiting is the Lucky-Break Wait. This type of wait is unusual in that it is for the most part voluntary. Unlike the Forced Wait, which is also voluntary, waiting for your lucky break does not necessarily mean that it will happen.
Turning one's life into a waiting game requires faith and hope, and is strictly for the optimists among us. On the surface it seems as ridiculous as following the directions on soup mixes, but the Lucky-Break Wait well serves those who are willing to do it. As long as one doesn't come to rely on it, wishing for a few good things to happen never hurts anybody.
We certainly do spend a good deal of our time waiting. The next time you're standing at the sink waiting for it to fill while cooking noodle soup that you'll have to eat until a large bag of cash falls out of the sky, don't be desperate. You're probably just as busy as the next guy. | 3861.txt | 0 |
[
"It is less voluntary than the Forced Wait.",
"It doesn't always bring the desired result.",
"It is more fruitful than the Forced Wait.",
"It doesn't give people faith and hope."
] | What can we learn about the Lucky-Break Wait? | The very purest form of waiting is the Watched-Pot Wait. It is without doubt the most annoying of all. Take filling up the kitchen sink as an example. There is absolutely nothing you can do while this is going on but keep both eyes fixed on the sink until it's full. During these waits, the brain slips away from the body and wanders about until the water runs over the edge of the counter and onto your socks. This kind of wait makes the waiter helpless and mindless.
A cousin to the Watched-Pot Wait is the Forced Wait. This one requires a bit of discipline. Properly preparing packaged noodle soup requires a Forced Wait. Directions are very specific. "Bring three cups of water to boil, add mix, simmer three minutes, remove from heat, let stand five minutes."I have my doubts that anyone has actually followed the procedures strictly. After all, Forced Waiting requires patience.
Perhaps the most powerful type of waiting is the Lucky-Break Wait. This type of wait is unusual in that it is for the most part voluntary. Unlike the Forced Wait, which is also voluntary, waiting for your lucky break does not necessarily mean that it will happen.
Turning one's life into a waiting game requires faith and hope, and is strictly for the optimists among us. On the surface it seems as ridiculous as following the directions on soup mixes, but the Lucky-Break Wait well serves those who are willing to do it. As long as one doesn't come to rely on it, wishing for a few good things to happen never hurts anybody.
We certainly do spend a good deal of our time waiting. The next time you're standing at the sink waiting for it to fill while cooking noodle soup that you'll have to eat until a large bag of cash falls out of the sky, don't be desperate. You're probably just as busy as the next guy. | 3861.txt | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.