Test: Reading Comprehension- 1 - GRE MCQ

PASSAGE: Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market.  Consequently, nothing seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.

 A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, Accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price–fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal” and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size.  Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers.  That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognised by advocates of free-market economic theories.  But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers.  Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by several explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.

 Moreover, those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States.  These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.  Formal price fixing by cartels and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are commonplace.  Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the former and used the latter would have suffered drastically in their economic development? There is no indication that they have.

 Socialist industry also works within a framework of controlled prices.  In the early 1970s, the soviet union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system.  Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by the free market over which they exercise little influence than are capitalist firms.

Q. It can be inferred from the author’s argument that a price fixed by the seller “seems pernicious” because

PASSAGE: Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market.  Consequently, nothing seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.

 A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, Accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price–fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal” and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size.  Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers.  That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognised by advocates of free-market economic theories.  But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers.  Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by several explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.

 Moreover, those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States.  These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.  Formal price fixing by cartels and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are commonplace.  Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the former and used the latter would have suffered drastically in their economic development? There is no indication that they have.

 Socialist industry also works within a framework of controlled prices.  In the early 1970s, the soviet union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system.  Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by the free market over which they exercise little influence than are capitalist firms.

Q. The suggestion in the passage that price-fixing in industrialized societies is normal arises from the author’s statement that price-fixing is​

PASSAGE: Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market.  Consequently, nothing seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.

 A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, Accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price–fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal” and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size.  Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers.  That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognised by advocates of free-market economic theories.  But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers.  Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by several explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.

 Moreover, those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States.  These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.  Formal price fixing by cartels and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are commonplace.  Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the former and used the latter would have suffered drastically in their economic development? There is no indication that they have.

 Socialist industry also works within a framework of controlled prices.  In the early 1970s, the soviet union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system.  Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by the free market over which they exercise little influence than are capitalist firms.

Q. According to the author, priced-fixing in nonsocialist countries is often.

PASSAGE: Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market.  Consequently, nothing seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.

 A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, Accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price–fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal” and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size.  Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers.  That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognised by advocates of free-market economic theories.  But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers.  Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by several explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.

 Moreover, those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States.  These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.  Formal price fixing by cartels and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are commonplace.  Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the former and used the latter would have suffered drastically in their economic development? There is no indication that they have.

 Socialist industry also works within a framework of controlled prices.  In the early 1970s, the soviet union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system.  Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by the free market over which they exercise little influence than are capitalist firms.

Q. According to the author, what is the result of the Soviet Union’s change in economic policy in the 1970’s?

PASSAGE: Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market.  Consequently, nothing seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.

 A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, Accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price–fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal” and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size.  Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers.  That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognised by advocates of free-market economic theories.  But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers.  Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by several explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.

 Moreover, those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States.  These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.  Formal price fixing by cartels and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are commonplace.  Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the former and used the latter would have suffered drastically in their economic development? There is no indication that they have.

 Socialist industry also works within a framework of controlled prices.  In the early 1970s, the soviet union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system.  Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by the free market over which they exercise little influence than are capitalist firms.

Q. With which of the following statements regarding the behavior of large firms in industrialized societies would the author be most likely to agree.

PASSAGE: Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market.  Consequently, nothing seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.

 A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious, Accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price–fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal” and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size.  Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers.  That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognised by advocates of free-market economic theories.  But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers.  Each large firm will thus avoid significant price cutting because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by several explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.

 Moreover, those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries other than the United States.  These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.  Formal price fixing by cartels and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are commonplace.  Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about price fixing, the countries that have avoided the former and used the latter would have suffered drastically in their economic development? There is no indication that they have.

 Socialist industry also works within a framework of controlled prices.  In the early 1970s, the soviet union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system.  Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by the free market over which they exercise little influence than are capitalist firms.

Q. In the passage, the author is primarily concerned with 

PASSAGE: The discoveries of the white dwarf, the neutron star, and the black hole, coming well after the discovery of the red giant, are among eh most exciting developments in decades because they may be well present physicists with their greatest challenge since the failure of classical mechanics.  In the life cycle of the star, after all of the hydrogen and helium fuel has been burned, the delicate balance between the outer nuclear radiation. Pressure and the stable gravitational force become disturbed, and slow contraction begins.  As compression increases, a very dense plasma forms.  If the initial star had a mass of less than 1.4 solar masses (1.4 times the mass of our sun), the process ceases at the density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch, and the star becomes a white dwarf.  However, if the star was originally more massive, the white dwarf plasma can’t resist the gravitation pressures, and in rapid collapse, all nuclei of the star are converted to a gas of free neutrons.  Gravitational attraction compresses this neutron gas rapidly until a density of 10 tons per cubic inch is reached; at this point, the strong nuclear force resists further contraction.  If the mass of the star was between 1.4 and a few solar masses, the process stops here, and we have a neutron star. But if the original star was more massive than a few solar masses, even the strong nuclear forces cannot resist the gravitational crunch.  The neutrons are forced into one another to form heavier hadrons and these in turn coalesce to form heavier entities, of which we as yet know nothing.  At this point, a complete collapse of the stellar mass occurs; existing theories predict a collapse to infinite density and infinitely small dimensions  Well before this, however, the surface gravitational force would become so strong that no signal could ever leave the star - any photon emitted would fall back under gravitational attraction – and the star would become a black hole in space. This gravitational collapse poses a fundamental challenge to physics.  When the most widely accepted theories predict such improbable things as infinite density and infinitely small dimensions, it simply means that we are missing some vital insight.  This last happened in physics in the 1930’s, when we faced the fundamental paradox concerning atomic structure.  At that time, it was recognized that electrons moved in table orbits about nuclei in atoms. However, it was also recognised that if the charge is accelerated, as it must be to remain in orbit, it radiates energy; so, theoretically, the electron would be expected eventually to spiral into the nucleus and destroy the atom. Studies centred around this paradox led to the development of quantum mechanics.  It may well be that an equivalent t advance awaits us in investigating the theoretical problems presented by the phenomenon of gravitational collapse.

Q. The primary purpose of the passage is to 

PASSAGE: The discoveries of the white dwarf, the neutron star, and the black hole, coming well after the discovery of the red giant, are among eh most exciting developments in decades because they may be well present physicists with their greatest challenge since the failure of classical mechanics.  In the life cycle of the star, after all of the hydrogen and helium fuel has been burned, the delicate balance between the outer nuclear radiation. Pressure and the stable gravitational force become disturbed, and slow contraction begins.  As compression increases, a very dense plasma forms.  If the initial star had a mass of less than 1.4 solar masses (1.4 times the mass of our sun), the process ceases at the density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch, and the star becomes a white dwarf.  However, if the star was originally more massive, the white dwarf plasma can’t resist the gravitation pressures, and in rapid collapse, all nuclei of the star are converted to a gas of free neutrons.  Gravitational attraction compresses this neutron gas rapidly until a density of 10 tons per cubic inch is reached; at this point, the strong nuclear force resists further contraction.  If the mass of the star was between 1.4 and a few solar masses, the process stops here, and we have a neutron star. But if the original star was more massive than a few solar masses, even the strong nuclear forces could not resist the gravitational crunch.  The neutrons are forced into one another to form heavier hadrons and these in turn coalesce to form heavier entities, of which we as yet know nothing.  At this point, a complete collapse of the stellar mass occurs; existing theories predict a collapse to infinite density and infinitely small dimensions  Well before this, however, the surface gravitational force would become so strong that no signal could ever leave the star - any photon emitted would fall back under gravitational attraction – and the star would become a black hole in space. This gravitational collapse poses a fundamental challenge to physics.  When the most widely accepted theories predict such improbable things as infinite density and infinitely small dimensions, it simply means that we are missing some vital insight.  This last happened in physics in the 1930’s, when we faced the fundamental paradox concerning atomic structure.  At that time, it was recognized that electrons moved in table orbits about nuclei in atoms. However, it was also recognised that if the charge is accelerated, as it must be to remain in orbit, it radiates energy; so, theoretically, the electron would be expected eventually to spiral into the nucleus and destroy the atom. Studies centred around this paradox led to the development of quantum mechanics.  It may well be that an equivalent t advance awaits us in investigating the theoretical problems presented by the phenomenon of gravitational collapse.
Q. What are the possible outcomes in the life cycle of a star after all of its fuel has been burned?

PASSAGE: The discoveries of the white dwarf, the neutron star, and the black hole, coming well after the discovery of the red giant, are among eh most exciting developments in decades because they may be well present physicists with their greatest challenge since the failure of classical mechanics.  In the life cycle of the star, after all of the hydrogen and helium fuel has been burned, the delicate balance between the outer nuclear radiation. Pressure and the stable gravitational force become disturbed, and slow contraction begins.  As compression increases, a very dense plasma forms.  If the initial star had a mass of less than 1.4 solar masses (1.4 times the mass of our sun), the process ceases at the density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch, and the star becomes a white dwarf.  However, if the star was originally more massive, the white dwarf plasma can’t resist the gravitation pressures, and in rapid collapse, all nuclei of the star are converted to a gas of free neutrons.  Gravitational attraction compresses this neutron gas rapidly until a density of 10 tons per cubic inch is reached; at this point, the strong nuclear force resists further contraction.  If the mass of the star was between 1.4 and a few solar masses, the process stops here, and we have a neutron star. But if the original star was more massive than a few solar masses, even the strong nuclear forces could not resist the gravitational crunch.  The neutrons are forced into one another to form heavier hadrons and these in turn coalesce to form heavier entities, of which we as yet know nothing.  At this point, a complete collapse of the stellar mass occurs; existing theories predict a collapse to infinite density and infinitely small dimensions  Well before this, however, the surface gravitational force would become so strong that no signal could ever leave the star - any photon emitted would fall back under gravitational attraction – and the star would become a black hole in space. This gravitational collapse poses a fundamental challenge to physics.  When the most widely accepted theories predict such improbable things as infinite density and infinitely small dimensions, it simply means that we are missing some vital insight.  This last happened in physics in the 1930’s, when we faced the fundamental paradox concerning atomic structure.  At that time, it was recognized that electrons moved in table orbits about nuclei in atoms. However, it was also recognised that if the charge is accelerated, as it must be to remain in orbit, it radiates energy; so, theoretically, the electron would be expected eventually to spiral into the nucleus and destroy the atom. Studies centred around this paradox led to the development of quantum mechanics.  It may well be that an equivalent t advance awaits us in investigating the theoretical problems presented by the phenomenon of gravitational collapse.

Q. According to the passage, the primary purpose of the passage is to

PASSAGE: The discoveries of the white dwarf, the neutron star, and the black hole, coming well after the discovery of the red giant, are among eh most exciting developments in decades because they may be well present physicists with their greatest challenge since the failure of classical mechanics.  In the life cycle of the star, after all of the hydrogen and helium fuel has been burned, the delicate balance between the outer nuclear radiation. Pressure and the stable gravitational force become disturbed, and slow contraction begins.  As compression increases, a very dense plasma forms.  If the initial star had a mass of less than 1.4 solar masses (1.4 times the mass of our sun), the process ceases at the density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch, and the star becomes a white dwarf.  However, if the star was originally more massive, the white dwarf plasma can’t resist the gravitation pressures, and in rapid collapse, all nuclei of the star are converted to a gas of free neutrons.  Gravitational attraction compresses this neutron gas rapidly until a density of 10 tons per cubic inch is reached; at this point, the strong nuclear force resists further contraction.  If the mass of the star was between 1.4 and a few solar masses, the process stops here, and we have a neutron star. But if the original star was more massive than a few solar masses, even the strong nuclear forces could not resist the gravitational crunch.  The neutrons are forced into one another to form heavier hadrons and these in turn coalesce to form heavier entities, of which we as yet know nothing.  At this point, a complete collapse of the stellar mass occurs; existing theories predict a collapse to infinite density and infinitely small dimensions  Well before this, however, the surface gravitational force would become so strong that no signal could ever leave the star - any photon emitted would fall back under gravitational attraction – and the star would become a black hole in space. This gravitational collapse poses a fundamental challenge to physics.  When the most widely accepted theories predict such improbable things as infinite density and infinitely small dimensions, it simply means that we are missing some vital insight.  This last happened in physics in the 1930’s, when we faced the fundamental paradox concerning atomic structure.  At that time, it was recognized that electrons moved in table orbits about nuclei in atoms. However, it was also recognised that if the charge is accelerated, as it must be to remain in orbit, it radiates energy; so, theoretically, the electron would be expected eventually to spiral into the nucleus and destroy the atom. Studies centred around this paradox led to the development of quantum mechanics.  It may well be that an equivalent t advance awaits us in investigating the theoretical problems presented by the phenomenon of gravitational collapse.
Q. The author asserts that the discoveries of the white dwarf, the neutron star, and the black hole are significant because these discoveries. 

PASSAGE: The discoveries of the white dwarf, the neutron star, and the black hole, coming well after the discovery of the red giant, are among eh most exciting developments in decades because they may be well present physicists with their greatest challenge since the failure of classical mechanics.  In the life cycle of the star, after all of the hydrogen and helium fuel has been burned, the delicate balance between the outer nuclear radiation. Pressure and the stable gravitational force become disturbed, and slow contraction begins.  As compression increases, a very dense plasma forms.  If the initial star had a mass of less than 1.4 solar masses (1.4 times the mass of our sun), the process ceases at the density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch, and the star becomes a white dwarf.  However, if the star was originally more massive, the white dwarf plasma can’t resist the gravitation pressures, and in rapid collapse, all nuclei of the star are converted to a gas of free neutrons.  Gravitational attraction compresses this neutron gas rapidly until a density of 10 tons per cubic inch is reached; at this point, the strong nuclear force resists further contraction.  If the mass of the star was between 1.4 and a few solar masses, the process stops here, and we have a neutron star. But if the original star was more massive than a few solar masses, even the strong nuclear forces could not resist the gravitational crunch.  The neutrons are forced into one another to form heavier hadrons and these in turn coalesce to form heavier entities, of which we as yet know nothing.  At this point, a complete collapse of the stellar mass occurs; existing theories predict a collapse to infinite density and infinitely small dimensions  Well before this, however, the surface gravitational force would become so strong that no signal could ever leave the star - any photon emitted would fall back under gravitational attraction – and the star would become a black hole in space. This gravitational collapse poses a fundamental challenge to physics.  When the most widely accepted theories predict such improbable things as infinite density and infinitely small dimensions, it simply means that we are missing some vital insight.  This last happened in physics in the 1930’s, when we faced the fundamental paradox concerning atomic structure.  At that time, it was recognized that electrons moved in table orbits about nuclei in atoms. However, it was also recognised that if the charge is accelerated, as it must be to remain in orbit, it radiates energy; so, theoretically, the electron would be expected eventually to spiral into the nucleus and destroy the atom. Studies centred around this paradox led to the development of quantum mechanics.  It may well be that an equivalent t advance awaits us in investigating the theoretical problems presented by the phenomenon of gravitational collapse.
Q. What happens to a star that initially had a mass greater than a few solar masses during the process of gravitational collapse?

PASSAGE: The discoveries of the white dwarf, the neutron star, and the black hole, coming well after the discovery of the red giant, are among eh most exciting developments in decades because they may be well present physicists with their greatest challenge since the failure of classical mechanics.  In the life cycle of the star, after all of the hydrogen and helium fuel has been burned, the delicate balance between the outer nuclear radiation. Pressure and the stable gravitational force become disturbed, and slow contraction begins.  As compression increases, a very dense plasma forms.  If the initial star had a mass of less than 1.4 solar masses (1.4 times the mass of our sun), the process ceases at the density of 1,000 tons per cubic inch, and the star becomes a white dwarf.  However, if the star was originally more massive, the white dwarf plasma can’t resist the gravitation pressures, and in rapid collapse, all nuclei of the star are converted to a gas of free neutrons.  Gravitational attraction compresses this neutron gas rapidly until a density of 10 tons per cubic inch is reached; at this point, the strong nuclear force resists further contraction.  If the mass of the star was between 1.4 and a few solar masses, the process stops here, and we have a neutron star. But if the original star was more massive than a few solar masses, even the strong nuclear forces could not resist the gravitational crunch.  The neutrons are forced into one another to form heavier hadrons and these in turn coalesce to form heavier entities, of which we as yet know nothing.  At this point, a complete collapse of the stellar mass occurs; existing theories predict a collapse to infinite density and infinitely small dimensions  Well before this, however, the surface gravitational force would become so strong that no signal could ever leave the star - any photon emitted would fall back under gravitational attraction – and the star would become a black hole in space. This gravitational collapse poses a fundamental challenge to physics.  When the most widely accepted theories predict such improbable things as infinite density and infinitely small dimensions, it simply means that we are missing some vital insight.  This last happened in physics in the 1930’s, when we faced the fundamental paradox concerning atomic structure.  At that time, it was recognized that electrons moved in table orbits about nuclei in atoms. However, it was also recognised that if the charge is accelerated, as it must be to remain in orbit, it radiates energy; so, theoretically, the electron would be expected eventually to spiral into the nucleus and destroy the atom. Studies centred around this paradox led to the development of quantum mechanics.  It may well be that an equivalent t advance awaits us in investigating the theoretical problems presented by the phenomenon of gravitational collapse.
Q. The author introduces the discussion of the paradox concerning atomic structures in order to