Test: Reading Comprehension- 2 - GMAT MCQ

Choose the option that best answers the question. 

The US Constitution established both gold and silver as the basis of US currency: that is to say, it established a bimetallic standard for currency. This remained in place for about a century, until the Coinage Act of 1873, which embraced a "gold only" standard, a monometallic standard, effectively dropping silver as the basis of currency. Over the next several decades, advocates of bimetallism and advocates of the "gold only" standard fiercely debated. The "gold only" advocates, such as William McKinley, argued that shifts in the relative value of the two precious metals could lead to wild fluctuations in the values of currency in a bimetallic system. Early in the United States history, Alexander Hamilton had tried to fix the gold-silver exchange rate by fiat, but of course, such restraints only inhibit the natural development of a free market. Unemployment was high in the depression caused by the Panic of 1893, and many argued that these economic challenges had been triggered by abandoning bimetallism. One of the more prominent advocates of bimetallism was William Jennings Bryant: indeed, bimetallism was the very center of his presidential campaigns in 1896 and 1900, both of which he lost to McKinley. Bryant articulated the popular view that a "gold only" standard limited the money supply, and thus favored those who were already quite wealthy, against the interests of working people of all professions. He famously expressed this argument in his "Cross of Gold" speech at the 1896 Democratic National Convention, in which he argued that continuing the "gold only" standard would "crucify" the honest laboring classes on a "cross of gold." Despite the eloquence of Bryant's arguments, history strongly favored the "gold-only" standard. The argument that increasing the money supply would lead to greater prosperity strikes us now as naïve: of course, we now understand that increasing the monetary supply can lead to runaway inflation, which hurts everyone. Furthermore, gold did not remain as limited as the advocates of bimetallism imagined. In the 1890s, scientists discovered a cyanide process that allowed workers to extract pure gold from much lower grade ore, thus significantly increasing domestic gold production. Additionally, the discovery of two immense gold deposits in South Africa substantially increased world gold supply. Thus, the "gold only" standard allowed for ample currency, and even robust prosperity in the 1920s, so bimetallism died a quiet death. 

The author of the passage believes William Jennings Bryant’s argument that a gold standard favors the rich to be

Choose the option that best answers the question. 

Originally, scientists predicted small asteroids to be hard and rocky, as any loose surface material (called regolith) generated by impacts was expected to escape their weak gravity. Aggregate small bodies were not thought to exist, because the slightest sustained relative motion would cause them to separate. But observations and computer modeling are proving otherwise. Most asteroids larger than a kilometer are now believed to be composites of smaller pieces. Those imaged at high-resolution show evidence for copious regolith despite the weak gravity. Most of them have one or more extraordinarily large craters, some of which are wider than the mean radius of the whole body. Such colossal impacts would not just gouge out a crater—they would break any monolithic body into pieces. In short, asteroids larger than a kilometer across may look like nuggets of hard rock but are more likely to be aggregate assemblages—or even piles of loose rubble so pervasively fragmented that no solid bedrock is left. The rubble hypothesis, proposed decades ago by scientists, lacked evidence, until the planetologist Schumaker realized that the huge craters on the asteroid Mathilde and its very low density could only make sense together: a porous body such as a rubble pile can withstand a battering much better than an integral object. It will absorb and dissipate a large fraction of the energy of an impact; the far side might hardly feel a thing. At first, the rubble hypothesis may appear conceptually troublesome. The material strength of an asteroid is nearly zero, and the gravity is so low one is tempted to neglect that too. The truth is neither strength nor gravity can be ignored. Paltry though it may be, gravity binds a rubble pile together. And anybody who builds sandcastles knows that even loose debris can cohere. Oft-ignored details of motion begin to matter: sliding friction, chemical bonding, damping of kinetic energy, etc. We are just beginning to fathom the subtle interplay of these minuscule forces. The size of an asteroid should determine which force dominates. One indication is the observed pattern of asteroidal rotation rates. Some collisions cause an asteroid to spin faster; others slow it down. If asteroids are monolithic rocks undergoing random collisions, a graph of their rotation rates should show a bell-shaped distribution with a statistical “tail” of very fast rotators. If nearly all asteroids are rubble piles, however, this tail would be missing, because any rubble pile spinning faster than once every two or three hours fly apart. Recently, several astronomers discovered that all but five observed asteroids obey a strict rotation limit. The exceptions are all smaller than about 150 meters in diameter, with an abrupt cutoff for asteroids larger than 200 meters. The evident conclusion—that asteroids larger than 200 meters across are rubble piles—agrees with recent computer modeling of collisions. A collision can blast a large asteroid to bits, but those bits will usually be moving slower than their mutual escape velocity (the lowest velocity that a body must have in order to escape the orbit of a planet). Over several hours, gravity will reassemble all but the fastest pieces into a rubble pile. 

The example of the sandcastle (in the second paragraph) serves to -

Choose the option that best answers the question. 

Originally, scientists predicted small asteroids to be hard and rocky, as any loose surface material (called regolith) generated by impacts was expected to escape their weak gravity. Aggregate small bodies were not thought to exist, because the slightest sustained relative motion would cause them to separate. But observations and computer modeling are proving otherwise. Most asteroids larger than a kilometer are now believed to be composites of smaller pieces. Those imaged at high-resolution show evidence for copious regolith despite the weak gravity. Most of them have one or more extraordinarily large craters, some of which are wider than the mean radius of the whole body. Such colossal impacts would not just gouge out a crater—they would break any monolithic body into pieces. In short, asteroids larger than a kilometer across may look like nuggets of hard rock but are more likely to be aggregate assemblages—or even piles of loose rubble so pervasively fragmented that no solid bedrock is left. The rubble hypothesis, proposed decades ago by scientists, lacked evidence, until the planetologist Schumaker realized that the huge craters on the asteroid Mathilde and its very low density could only make sense together: a porous body such as a rubble pile can withstand a battering much better than an integral object. It will absorb and dissipate a large fraction of the energy of an impact; the far side might hardly feel a thing. At first, the rubble hypothesis may appear conceptually troublesome. The material strength of an asteroid is nearly zero, and the gravity is so low one is tempted to neglect that too. The truth is neither strength nor gravity can be ignored. Paltry though it may be, gravity binds a rubble pile together. And anybody who builds sandcastles knows that even loose debris can cohere. Oft-ignored details of motion begin to matter: sliding friction, chemical bonding, damping of kinetic energy, etc. We are just beginning to fathom the subtle interplay of these minuscule forces. The size of an asteroid should determine which force dominates. One indication is the observed pattern of asteroidal rotation rates. Some collisions cause an asteroid to spin faster; others slow it down. If asteroids are monolithic rocks undergoing random collisions, a graph of their rotation rates should show a bell-shaped distribution with a statistical “tail” of very fast rotators. If nearly all asteroids are rubble piles, however, this tail would be missing, because any rubble pile spinning faster than once every two or three hours would fly apart. Recently, several astronomers discovered that all but five observed asteroids obey a strict rotation limit. The exceptions are all smaller than about 150 meters in diameter, with an abrupt cutoff for asteroids larger than 200 meters. The evident conclusion—that asteroids larger than 200 meters across are rubble piles—agrees with recent computer modeling of collisions. A collision can blast a large asteroid to bits, but those bits will usually be moving slower than their mutual escape velocity (the lowest velocity that a body must have in order to escape the orbit of a planet). Over several hours, gravity will reassemble all but the fastest pieces into a rubble pile. 

Scientists originally believed that asteroids lacked regolith because-

Choose the option that best answers the question. 

Originally, scientists predicted small asteroids to be hard and rocky, as any loose surface material (called regolith) generated by impacts was expected to escape their weak gravity. Aggregate small bodies were not thought to exist, because the slightest sustained relative motion would cause them to separate. But observations and computer modeling are proving otherwise. Most asteroids larger than a kilometer are now believed to be composites of smaller pieces. Those imaged at high-resolution show evidence for copious regolith despite the weak gravity. Most of them have one or more extraordinarily large craters, some of which are wider than the mean radius of the whole body. Such colossal impacts would not just gouge out a crater—they would break any monolithic body into pieces. In short, asteroids larger than a kilometer across may look like nuggets of hard rock but are more likely to be aggregate assemblages—or even piles of loose rubble so pervasively fragmented that no solid bedrock is left. The rubble hypothesis, proposed decades ago by scientists, lacked evidence, until the planetologist Schumaker realized that the huge craters on the asteroid Mathilde and its very low density could only make sense together: a porous body such as a rubble pile can withstand a battering much better than an integral object. It will absorb and dissipate a large fraction of the energy of an impact; the far side might hardly feel a thing. At first, the rubble hypothesis may appear conceptually troublesome. The material strength of an asteroid is nearly zero, and the gravity is so low one is tempted to neglect that too. The truth is neither strength nor gravity can be ignored. Paltry though it may be, gravity binds a rubble pile together. And anybody who builds sandcastles knows that even loose debris can cohere. Oft-ignored details of motion begin to matter: sliding friction, chemical bonding, damping of kinetic energy, etc. We are just beginning to fathom the subtle interplay of these minuscule forces. The size of an asteroid should determine which force dominates. One indication is the observed pattern of asteroidal rotation rates. Some collisions cause an asteroid to spin faster; others slow it down. If asteroids are monolithic rocks undergoing random collisions, a graph of their rotation rates should show a bell-shaped distribution with a statistical “tail” of very fast rotators. If nearly all asteroids are rubble piles, however, this tail would be missing, because any rubble pile spinning faster than once every two or three hours fly apart. Recently, several astronomers discovered that all but five observed asteroids obey a strict rotation limit. The exceptions are all smaller than about 150 meters in diameter, with an abrupt cutoff for asteroids larger than 200 meters. The evident conclusion—that asteroids larger than 200 meters across are rubble piles—agrees with recent computer modeling of collisions. A collision can blast a large asteroid to bits, but those bits will usually be moving slower than their mutual escape velocity (the lowest velocity that a body must have in order to escape the orbit of a planet). Over several hours, gravity will reassemble all but the fastest pieces into a rubble pile. 

The primary purpose of the passage is to -

Choose the option that best answers the question.

Originally, scientists predicted small asteroids to be hard and rocky, as any loose surface material (called regolith) generated by impacts was expected to escape their weak gravity. Aggregate small bodies were not thought to exist, because the slightest sustained relative motion would cause them to separate. But observations and computer modeling are proving otherwise. Most asteroids larger than a kilometer are now believed to be composites of smaller pieces. Those imaged at high-resolution show evidence for copious regolith despite the weak gravity. Most of them have one or more extraordinarily large craters, some of which are wider than the mean radius of the whole body. Such colossal impacts would not just gouge out a crater—they would break any monolithic body into pieces. In short, asteroids larger than a kilometer across may look like nuggets of hard rock but are more likely to be aggregate assemblages—or even piles of loose rubble so pervasively fragmented that no solid bedrock is left. The rubble hypothesis, proposed decades ago by scientists, lacked evidence, until the planetologist Schumaker realized that the huge craters on the asteroid Mathilde and its very low density could only make sense together: a porous body such as a rubble pile can withstand a battering much better than an integral object. It will absorb and dissipate a large fraction of the energy of an impact; the far side might hardly feel a thing. At first, the rubble hypothesis may appear conceptually troublesome. The material strength of an asteroid is nearly zero, and the gravity is so low one is tempted to neglect that too. The truth is neither strength nor gravity can be ignored. Paltry though it may be, gravity binds a rubble pile together. And anybody who builds sandcastles knows that even loose debris can cohere. Oft-ignored details of motion begin to matter: sliding friction, chemical bonding, damping of kinetic energy, etc. We are just beginning to fathom the subtle interplay of these minuscule forces. The size of an asteroid should determine which force dominates. One indication is the observed pattern of asteroidal rotation rates. Some collisions cause an asteroid to spin faster; others slow it down. If asteroids are monolithic rocks undergoing random collisions, a graph of their rotation rates should show a bell-shaped distribution with a statistical “tail” of very fast rotators. If nearly all asteroids are rubble piles, however, this tail would be missing, because any rubble pile spinning faster than once every two or three hours fly apart. Recently, several astronomers discovered that all but five observed asteroids obey a strict rotation limit. The exceptions are all smaller than about 150 meters in diameter, with an abrupt cutoff for asteroids larger than 200 meters. The evident conclusion—that asteroids larger than 200 meters across are rubble piles—agrees with recent computer modeling of collisions. A collision can blast a large asteroid to bits, but those bits will usually be moving slower than their mutual escape velocity (the lowest velocity that a body must have in order to escape the orbit of a planet). Over several hours, gravity will reassemble all but the fastest pieces into a rubble pile.

How would the author of the passage most likely respond to the assertion of another scientist claiming that a crater greater than the radius of an asteroid is a result of an impact?

Choose the option that best answers the question.

Originally, scientists predicted small asteroids to be hard and rocky, as any loose surface material (called regolith) generated by impacts was expected to escape their weak gravity. Aggregate small bodies were not thought to exist, because the slightest sustained relative motion would cause them to separate. But observations and computer modeling are proving otherwise. Most asteroids larger than a kilometer are now believed to be composites of smaller pieces. Those imaged at high-resolution show evidence for copious regolith despite the weak gravity. Most of them have one or more extraordinarily large craters, some of which are wider than the mean radius of the whole body. Such colossal impacts would not just gouge out a crater—they would break any monolithic body into pieces. In short, asteroids larger than a kilometer across may look like nuggets of hard rock but are more likely to be aggregate assemblages—or even piles of loose rubble so pervasively fragmented that no solid bedrock is left. The rubble hypothesis, proposed decades ago by scientists, lacked evidence, until the planetologist Schumaker realized that the huge craters on the asteroid Mathilde and its very low density could only make sense together: a porous body such as a rubble pile can withstand a battering much better than an integral object. It will absorb and dissipate a large fraction of the energy of an impact; the far side might hardly feel a thing. At first, the rubble hypothesis may appear conceptually troublesome. The material strength of an asteroid is nearly zero, and the gravity is so low one is tempted to neglect that too. The truth is neither strength nor gravity can be ignored. Paltry though it may be, gravity binds a rubble pile together. And anybody who builds sandcastles knows that even loose debris can cohere. Oft-ignored details of motion begin to matter: sliding friction, chemical bonding, damping of kinetic energy, etc. We are just beginning to fathom the subtle interplay of these minuscule forces. The size of an asteroid should determine which force dominates. One indication is the observed pattern of asteroidal rotation rates. Some collisions cause an asteroid to spin faster; others slow it down. If asteroids are monolithic rocks undergoing random collisions, a graph of their rotation rates should show a bell-shaped distribution with a statistical “tail” of very fast rotators. If nearly all asteroids are rubble piles, however, this tail would be missing, because any rubble pile spinning faster than once every two or three hours fly apart. Recently, several astronomers discovered that all but five observed asteroids obey a strict rotation limit. The exceptions are all smaller than about 150 meters in diameter, with an abrupt cutoff for asteroids larger than 200 meters. The evident conclusion—that asteroids larger than 200 meters across are rubble piles—agrees with recent computer modeling of collisions. A collision can blast a large asteroid to bits, but those bits will usually be moving slower than their mutual escape velocity (the lowest velocity that a body must have in order to escape the orbit of a planet). Over several hours, gravity will reassemble all but the fastest pieces into a rubble pile.

According to the rubble-pile hypothesis, an advantage conferred on an asteroid held together by weak forces is that it is -

The tale of Piltdown Man, the most infamous forgery in the contentious detective story of the origins of mankind, began in 1912. On December 18 that year Charles Dawson, a well-known amateur British archaeologist, and Arthur Smith Woodward, of the British Museum of Natural History, announced the discovery of some amazing human fossils. The remains comprised nine pieces of skull, a broken jaw with two teeth in place, a few stone tools, and some animal bones, all of which had been discovered on a farm near Piltdown Common in Sussex. When pieced together the skull looked distinctly human. Although Piltdown Man, as the hominid became known, had unusually thick bones, the brain case was large and rounded. There was no sign of prominent brow ridges or other apelike features. However, the shape of the jaw bone resembled that of an ape. The only human characteristic of this jaw was the wear on the two molars, which were ground down flat, as is frequently true of hominids who eat tough or abrasive foods, such as seeds. In other words the creature had the jaw of an ape and the skull of Homo sapiens. The primitive stone tools found with these remains suggested a remote age for Piltdown Man, perhaps the Early Pleistocene or even the Late Pliocene. (In 1912 experts thought the Pliocene lasted from 1 million to 600 000 years ago. Scientists now date it to between 5 million and 1.7 million years ago.) This date was also supported by some animal bones found with Piltdown Man. To most scientists of the time, Piltdown Man fulfilled a prediction made by the pioneering evolutionist Charles Darwin, who had believed that humans and the apes could be connected genetically through a still undiscovered creature. Most significantly, it was half-human in precisely the feature that was then accepted as the most important difference between humans and the apes - the brain. At this time there was little fossil evidence to contradict the idea that the brain was among the first of the human features to evolve. As time went on, however, Homo erectus fossils were found in Java and China, while in South Africa the australopithecines were being discovered. All these fossils had human-like jaws and teeth and relatively small brains in contrast to Piltdown Man's large cranium and apelike jaw. The large brain simply did not fit with the rest of the fossil evidence. By 1948 scientists knew that bones buried in the earth gradually absorb fluorine. The older a bone, the more fluorine it contains. When the Piltdown materials were tested for fluorine, the skull and jaw fragments turned out to be much younger than the Early Pleistocene animal bones with which the skull 45 had been found. Scientists were now very suspicious. In 1953 all the Piltdown material was tested for its authenticity. Not only was the recent age of the jaw and skull confirmed, but the jaw proved to be that of a modern orangutan, with the teeth filed down in a quite obvious manner to imitate wear on human teeth. But the forger had not stopped there. A bone tool found with the remains had been made in recent times with a steel knife, which leaves different marks than does a stone flake or axe. The tools, as well as the animal bones, had been taken from different archaeological sites. Once the forgery was exposed by modern scientific analysis the mystery was no longer where Piltdown Man came in human evolution but who was responsible for the hoax, and why? Although Dawson, the discoverer of most of the Piltdown material, is frequently singled out as the person responsible for this practical joke, there is no definite proof and the question is far from settled.

It can be inferred that it took so long to expose the forgery because

A. the forger was exceptionally clever making it difficult to detect the alterations
B. reliable techniques for dating rocks did not exist until recently
C. the bones were not subjected to close scrutiny until considerable contradictory evidence accumulated
D. the scientists had no reason to doubt the credibility of the team who made the discovery
E. similar fossils from other archeological sites had proved to be genuine

The tale of Piltdown Man, the most infamous forgery in the contentious detective story of the origins of mankind, began in 1912. On December 18 that year Charles Dawson, a well-known amateur British archaeologist, and Arthur Smith Woodward, of the British Museum of Natural History, announced the discovery of some amazing human fossils. The remains comprised nine pieces of skull, a broken jaw with two teeth in place, a few stone tools, and some animal bones, all of which had been discovered on a farm near Piltdown Common in Sussex. When pieced together the skull looked distinctly human. Although Piltdown Man, as the hominid became known, had unusually thick bones, the brain case was large and rounded. There was no sign of prominent brow ridges or other apelike features. However, the shape of the jaw bone resembled that of an ape. The only human characteristic of this jaw was the wear on the two molars, which were ground down flat, as is frequently true of hominids who eat tough or abrasive foods, such as seeds. In other words the creature had the jaw of an ape and the skull of Homo sapiens. The primitive stone tools found with these remains suggested a remote age for Piltdown Man, perhaps the Early Pleistocene or even the Late Pliocene. (In 1912 experts thought the Pliocene lasted from 1 million to 600 000 years ago. Scientists now date it to between 5 million and 1.7 million years ago.) This date was also supported by some animal bones found with Piltdown Man. To most scientists of the time, Piltdown Man fulfilled a prediction made by the pioneering evolutionist Charles Darwin, who had believed that humans and the apes could be connected genetically through a still undiscovered creature. Most significantly, it was half-human in precisely the feature that was then accepted as the most important difference between humans and the apes - the brain. At this time there was little fossil evidence to contradict the idea that the brain was among the first human features to evolve. As time went on, however, Homo erectus fossils were found in Java and China, while in South Africa the australopithecines were being discovered. All these fossils had human-like jaws and teeth and relatively small brains in contrast to Piltdown Man's large cranium and apelike jaw. The large brain simply did not fit with the rest of the fossil evidence. By 1948 scientists knew that bones buried in the earth gradually absorb fluorine. The older a bone, the more fluorine it contains. When the Piltdown materials were tested for fluorine, the skull and jaw fragments turned out to be much younger than the Early Pleistocene animal bones with which the skull 45 had been found. Scientists were now very suspicious. In 1953 all the Piltdown material was tested for its authenticity. Not only was the recent age of the jaw and skull confirmed, but the jaw proved to be that of a modern orangutan, with the teeth filed down in a quite obvious manner to imitate wear on human teeth. But the forger had not stopped there. A bone tool found with the remains had been made in recent times with a steel knife, which leaves different marks than does a stone flake or axe. The tools, as well as the animal bones, had been taken from different archaeological sites. Once the forgery was exposed by modern scientific analysis the mystery was no longer where Piltdown Man came in human evolution but who was responsible for the hoax, and why? Although Dawson, the discoverer of most of the Piltdown material, is frequently singled out as the person responsible for this practical joke, there is no definite proof and the question is far from settled.

The scientists of the time made which of the following mistakes

A. believed that fossil discoveries would reveal much about human origins
B. had preconceived ideas about what features an early hominid should have
C. followed the ideas of Darwin in the face of counterevidence
D. incorrectly judged the size of the brain
E. failed to examine other fossil evidence available at the time

The tale of Piltdown Man, the most infamous forgery in the contentious detective story of the origins of mankind, began in 1912. On December 18 that year Charles Dawson, a well-known amateur British archaeologist, and Arthur Smith Woodward, of the British Museum of Natural History, announced the discovery of some amazing human fossils. The remains comprised nine pieces of skull, a broken jaw with two teeth in place, a few stone tools, and some animal bones, all of which had been discovered on a farm near Piltdown Common in Sussex. When pieced together the skull looked distinctly human. Although Piltdown Man, as the hominid became known, had unusually thick bones, the braincase was large and rounded. There was no sign of prominent brow ridges or other apelike features. However, the shape of the jaw bone resembled that of an ape. The only human characteristic of this jaw was the wear on the two molars, which were ground down flat, as is frequently true of hominids who eat tough or abrasive foods, such as seeds. In other words the creature had the jaw of an ape and the skull of Homo sapiens. The primitive stone tools found with these remains suggested a remote age for Piltdown Man, perhaps the Early Pleistocene or even the Late Pliocene. (In 1912 experts thought the Pliocene lasted from 1 million to 600 000 years ago. Scientists now date it to between 5 million and 1.7 million years ago.) This date was also supported by some animal bones found with Piltdown Man. To most scientists of the time, Piltdown Man fulfilled a prediction made by the pioneering evolutionist Charles Darwin, who had believed that humans and the apes could be connected genetically through a still undiscovered creature. Most significantly, it was half-human in precisely the feature that was then accepted as the most important difference between humans and the apes - the brain. At this time there was little fossil evidence to contradict the idea that the brain was among the first of the human features to evolve. As time went on, however, Homo erectus fossils were found in Java and China, while in South Africa the australopithecines were being discovered. All these fossils had human-like jaws and teeth and relatively small brains in contrast to Piltdown Man's large cranium and apelike jaw. The large brain simply did not fit with the rest of the fossil evidence. By 1948 scientists knew that bones buried in the earth gradually absorb fluorine. The older a bone, the more fluorine it contains. When the Piltdown materials were tested for fluorine, the skull and jaw fragments turned out to be much younger than the Early Pleistocene animal bones with which the skull 45 had been found. Scientists were now very suspicious. In 1953 all the Piltdown material was tested for its authenticity. Not only was the recent age of the jaw and skull confirmed, but the jaw proved to be that of a modern orangutan, with the teeth filed down in a quite obvious manner to imitate wear on human teeth. But the forger had not stopped there. A bone tool found with the remains had been made in recent times with a steel knife, which leaves different marks than does a stone flake or axe. The tools, as well as the animal bones, had been taken from different archaeological sites. Once the forgery was exposed by modem scientific analysis the mystery was no longer where Piltdown Man came in human evolution but who was responsible for the hoax, and why? Although Dawson, the discoverer of most of the Piltdown material, is frequently singled out as the person responsible for this practical joke, there is no definite proof and the question is far from settled.

The Piltdown skull seemed distinctly human because it had

I large brain
II thick bones
III brow ridges

The tale of Piltdown Man, the most infamous forgery in the contentious detective story of the origins of mankind, began in 1912. On December 18 that year Charles Dawson, a well-known amateur British archaeologist, and Arthur Smith Woodward, of the British Museum of Natural History, announced the discovery of some amazing human fossils. The remains comprised nine pieces of skull, a broken jaw with two teeth in place, a few stone tools, and some animal bones, all of which had been discovered on a farm near Piltdown Common in Sussex. When pieced together the skull looked distinctly human. Although Piltdown Man, as the hominid became known, had unusually thick bones, the braincase was large and rounded. There was no sign of prominent brow ridges or other apelike features. However, the shape of the jaw bone resembled that of an ape. The only human characteristic of this jaw was the wear on the two molars, which were ground down flat, as is frequently true of hominids who eat tough or abrasive foods, such as seeds. In other words the creature had the jaw of an ape and the skull of Homo sapiens. The primitive stone tools found with these remains suggested a remote age for Piltdown Man, perhaps the Early Pleistocene or even the Late Pliocene. (In 1912 experts thought the Pliocene lasted from 1 million to 600 000 years ago. Scientists now date it to between 5 million and 1.7 million years ago.) This date was also supported by some animal bones found with Piltdown Man. To most scientists of the time, Piltdown Man fulfilled a prediction made by the pioneering evolutionist Charles Darwin, who had believed that humans and the apes could be connected genetically through a still undiscovered creature. Most significantly, it was half-human in precisely the feature that was then accepted as the most important difference between humans and the apes - the brain. At this time there was little fossil evidence to contradict the idea that the brain was among the first of the human features to evolve. As time went on, however, Homo erectus fossils were found in Java and China, while in South Africa the australopithecines were being discovered. All these fossils had human-like jaws and teeth and relatively small brains in contrast to Piltdown Man's large cranium and apelike jaw. The large brain simply did not fit with the rest of the fossil evidence. By 1948 scientists knew that bones buried in the earth gradually absorb fluorine. The older a bone, the more fluorine it contains. When the Piltdown materials were tested for fluorine, the skull and jaw fragments turned out to be much younger than the Early Pleistocene animal bones with which the skull 45 had been found. Scientists were now very suspicious. In 1953 all the Piltdown material was tested for its authenticity. Not only was the recent age of the jaw and skull confirmed, but the jaw proved to be that of a modern orangutan, with the teeth filed down in a quite obvious manner to imitate wear on human teeth. But the forger had not stopped there. A bone tool found with the remains had been made in recent times with a steel knife, which leaves different marks than does a stone flake or axe. The tools, as well as the animal bones, had been taken from different archaeological sites. Once the forgery was exposed by modern scientific analysis the mystery was no longer where Piltdown Man came in human evolution but who was responsible for the hoax, and why? Although Dawson, the discoverer of most of the Piltdown material, is frequently singled out as the person responsible for this practical joke, there is no definite proof and the question is far from settled. 

The animal bones found buried with the Piltdown Man were all of the following except 

A. shown to be genuinely Pleistocene 
B. more recent than first thought 
C. unconnected with the human remains 
D. deliberately planted at the site 
E. not originally from the Piltdown site.

The first and most important rule of legitimate or popular government, that is to say, of government whose object is the good of the people, is therefore, as I have observed, to following in everything the general will. But to follow this will it is necessary to know it, and above all to distinguish it from the particular will, beginning with one's self: this distinction is always very difficult to make, and only the most sublime virtue can afford sufficient illumination for it. As, in order to will, it is necessary to be free, a difficulty no less great than the former arises that of preserving at once the public liberty and the authority of government. Look into the motives which have induced men, once united by their common needs in a general society, to unite themselves still more intimately by means of civil societies: you will find no other motive than that of assuring the property, life and liberty of each member by the protection of all. But can men be forced to defend the liberty of any one among them, without trespassing on that of others? And how can they provide for the public needs, without alienating the individual property of those who are forced to contribute to them? With whatever sophistry all this may be covered over, it is certain that if any constraint can be laid on my will, I am no longer free, and that I am no longer master of my own property, if any one else can lay a hand on it. This difficulty, which would have seemed insurmountable, has been removed, like the first, by the most sublime of all human institutions, or rather by a divine inspiration, which teaches mankind to imitate here below the unchangeable decrees of the Deity. By what inconceivable art has a means been found of making men free by making them subject; of using in the service of the State the properties, the persons and even the lives of all its members, without constraining and without consulting them; of confining their will by their own admission; of overcoming their refusal by that consent, and forcing them to punish themselves, when they act against their own will? How can it be that all should obey, yet nobody take upon him to command, and that all should serve, and yet have no masters, but be the more free, as, in apparent subjection, each loses no part of his liberty but what might be hurtful to that of another? These wonders are the work of law. It is to law alone that men owe justice and liberty. It is this salutary organ of the will of all which establishes, in civil right, the natural equality between men. It is this celestial voice which dictates to each citizen the precepts of public reason, and teaches him to act according to the rules of his own judgment, and not to behave inconsistently with himself. It is with this voice alone that political rulers should speak when they command; for no sooner does one man, setting aside the law, claim to subject another to his private will, than he departs from the state of civil society, and confronts him face to face in the pure state of nature, in which obedience is prescribed solely by necessity. 
Adapted from: A Discourse on Political Economy, Jean Jacques Rousseau (1755). 

The author’s attitude to the law in this passage is best conveyed as 

A. respect for its inalienable authority 
B. extolling its importance as a human institution 
C. resignation to the need for its imposition on the majority 
D. acceptance of its restrictions 
E. praise for its divine origin.

The first and most important rule of legitimate or popular government, that is to say, of government whose object is the good of the people, is, therefore, as I have observed, to follow in everything the general will. But to follow this will it is necessary to know it, and above all to distinguish it from the particular will, beginning with one's self: this distinction is always very difficult to make, and only the most sublime virtue can afford sufficient illumination for it. As, in order to will, it is necessary to be free, a difficulty no less great than the former arises that of preserving at once the public liberty and the authority of government. Look into the motives which have induced men, once united by their common needs in general society, to unite themselves still more intimately by means of civil societies: you will find no other motive than that of assuring the property, life, and liberty of each member by the protection of all. But can men be forced to defend the liberty of anyone among them, without trespassing on that of others? And how can they provide for the public needs, without alienating the individual property of those who are forced to contribute to them? With whatever sophistry all this may be covered over, it is certain that if any constraint can be laid on my will, I am no longer free, and that I am no longer master of my own property if anyone else can lay a hand on it. This difficulty, which would have seemed insurmountable, has been removed, like the first, by the most sublime of all human institutions, or rather by a divine inspiration, which teaches mankind to imitate here below the unchangeable decrees of the Deity. By what inconceivable art has a means been found of making men free by making them subject; of using in the service of the State the properties, the persons and even the lives of all its members, without constraining and without consulting them; of confining their will by their own admission; of overcoming their refusal by that consent, and forcing them to punish themselves, when they act against their own will? How can it be that all should obey, yet nobody takes upon him to command and that all should serve, and yet have no masters, but be the freer, as, in apparent subjection, each loses no part of his liberty but what might be hurtful to that of another? These wonders are the work of law. It is to law alone that men owe justice and liberty. It is this salutary organ of the will of all which establishes, in civil right, the natural equality between men. It is this celestial voice that dictates to each citizen the precepts of public reason and teaches him to act according to the rules of his own judgment, and not to behave inconsistently with himself. It is with this voice alone that political rulers should speak when they command; for no sooner does one man, setting aside the law, claim to subject another to his private will, than he departs from the state of civil society, and confronts him face to face in the pure state of nature, in which obedience is prescribed solely by necessity. 
Adapted from: A Discourse on Political Economy, Jean Jacques Rousseau (1755). 

The paradox in line 28 is resolved according to the author when an individual 

A. submits to the rule of law and thus is at liberty to do anything that does not harm another person 
B. behaves according to the natural rights of man and not according to imposed rules 
C. agrees to follow the rule of law even when it is against his best interests 
D. belongs to a society that guarantees individual liberty at all times 
E. follows the will of the majority.

The first and most important rule of legitimate or popular government, that is to say, of government whose object is the good of the people, is, therefore, as I have observed, to follow in everything the general will. But to follow this will it is necessary to know it, and above all to distinguish it from the particular will, beginning with one's self: this distinction is always very difficult to make, and only the most sublime virtue can afford sufficient illumination for it. As, in order to will, it is necessary to be free, a difficulty no less great than the former arises that of preserving at once the public liberty and the authority of government. Look into the motives which have induced men, once united by their common needs in general society, to unite themselves still more intimately by means of civil societies: you will find no other motive than that of assuring the property, life, and liberty of each member by the protection of all. But can men be forced to defend the liberty of anyone among them, without trespassing on that of others? And how can they provide for the public needs, without alienating the individual property of those who are forced to contribute to them? With whatever sophistry all this may be covered over, it is certain that if any constraint can be laid on my will, I am no longer free, and that I am no longer master of my own property if anyone else can lay a hand on it. This difficulty, which would have seemed insurmountable, has been removed, like the first, by the most sublime of all human institutions, or rather by a divine inspiration, which teaches mankind to imitate here below the unchangeable decrees of the Deity. By what inconceivable art has a means been found of making men free by making them subject; of using in the service of the State the properties, the persons and even the lives of all its members, without constraining and without consulting them; of confining their will by their own admission; of overcoming their refusal by that consent, and forcing them to punish themselves, when they act against their own will? How can it be that all should obey, yet nobody takes upon him to command, and that all should serve, and yet have no masters, but be the more free, as, in apparent subjection, each loses no part of his liberty but what might be hurtful to that of another? These wonders are the work of law. It is to law alone that men owe justice and liberty. It is this salutary organ of the will of all which establishes, in civil right, the natural equality between men. It is this celestial voice which dictates to each citizen the precepts of public reason, and teaches him to act according to the rules of his own judgment, and not to behave inconsistently with himself. It is with this voice alone that political rulers should speak when they command; for no sooner does one man, setting aside the law, claim to subject another to his private will, than he departs from the state of civil society, and confronts him face to face in the pure state of nature, in which obedience is prescribed solely by necessity. 
Adapted from: A Discourse on Political Economy, Jean Jacques Rousseau (1755). 

The author would agree with all of the following except 

A. government must maintain its authority without unduly compromising personal liberty 
B. individual freedom is threatened in the absence of law 
C. justice cannot be ensured in the absence of law 
D. political leaders should use the law as their guide to correct leadership 
E. the law recognizes that all men are capable of recognizing what is in the general interest.

The pioneers of the teaching of science imagined that its introduction into education would remove the conventionality, artificiality, and backward-lookingness which were characteristic; of classical studies, but they were gravely disappointed. So, too, in their time had the humanists thought that the study of the classical authors in the original would banish at once the dull pedantry and superstition of mediaeval scholasticism. The professional schoolmaster was a match for both of them, and has almost managed to make the understanding of chemical reactions as dull and as dogmatic an affair as the reading of Virgil's Aeneid. The chief claim for the use of science in education is that it teaches a child something about the actual universe in which he is living, in making him acquainted with the results of scientific discovery, and at the same time teaches him how to think logically and inductively by studying scientific method. A certain limited success has been reached in the first of these aims, but practically none at all in the second. Those privileged members of the community who have been through a secondary or public school education may be expected to know something about the elementary physics and chemistry of a hundred years ago, but they probably know hardly more than any bright boy can pick up from an interest in wireless or scientific hobbies out of school hours. As to the learning of scientific method, the whole thing is palpably a farce. Actually, for the convenience of teachers and the requirements of the examination system, it is necessary that the pupils not only do not learn scientific method but learn precisely the reverse, that is, to believe exactly what they are told and to reproduce it when asked, whether it seems nonsense to them or not. The way in which educated people respond to such quackeries as spiritualism or astrology, not to say more dangerous ones such as racial theories or currency myths, shows that fifty years of  education in the method of science in Britain or Germany has  produced no visible effect whatever. The only way of learning the method of science is the long and bitter way of personal experience, and, until the educational or social systems are altered to make this possible, the best we can expect is the production of a minority of people who are able to acquire some of the techniques of science and a still smaller minority who are able to use and develop them.
Adapted from: The Social Function of Science, John D Bernal (1939). 

If the author were to study current education in science to see how things have changed since he wrote the piece, he would probably be most interested in the answer to which of the following questions? 

A. Do students know more about the world about them? 
B. Do students spend more time in laboratories? 
C. Can students apply their knowledge logically? 
D. Have textbooks improved? 
E. Do they respect their teachers?

The pioneers of the teaching of science imagined that its introduction into education would remove the conventionality, artificiality, and backward-lookingness which were characteristic; of classical studies, but they were gravely disappointed. So, too, in their time had the humanists thought that the study of the classical authors in the original would banish at once the dull pedantry and superstition of mediaeval scholasticism. The professional schoolmaster was a match for both of them, and has almost managed to make the understanding of chemical reactions as dull and as dogmatic an affair as the reading of Virgil's Aeneid. The chief claim for the use of science in education is that it teaches a child something about the actual universe in which he is living, in making him acquainted with the results of scientific discovery, and at the same time teaches him how to think logically and inductively by studying scientific method. A certain limited success has been reached in the first of these aims, but practically none at all in the second. Those privileged members of the community who have been through a secondary or public school education may be expected to know something about the elementary physics and chemistry of a hundred years ago, but they probably know hardly more than any bright boy can pick up from an interest in wireless or scientific hobbies out of school hours. As to the learning of scientific method, the whole thing is palpably a farce. Actually, for the convenience of teachers and the requirements of the examination system, it is necessary that the pupils not only do not learn scientific method but learn precisely the reverse, that is, to believe exactly what they are told and to reproduce it when asked, whether it seems nonsense to them or not. The way in which educated people respond to such quackeries as spiritualism or astrology, not to say more dangerous ones such as racial theories or currency myths, shows that fifty years of  education in the method of science in Britain or Germany has  produced no visible effect whatever. The only way of learning the method of science is the long and bitter way of personal experience, and, until the educational or social systems are altered to make this possible, the best we can expect is the production of a minority of people who are able to acquire some of the techniques of science and a still smaller minority who are able to use and develop them.
Adapted from: The Social Function of Science, John D Bernal (1939). 

The author implies that the professional schoolmaster has 

A. no interest in teaching science 
B. thwarted attempts to enliven education 
C. aided true learning 
D. supported the humanists 
E. been a pioneer in both science and humanities.

The pioneers of the teaching of science imagined that its introduction into education would remove the conventionality, artificiality, and backward-lookingness which were characteristic; of classical studies, but they were gravely disappointed. So, too, in their time had the humanists thought that the study of the classical authors in the original would banish at once the dull pedantry and superstition of mediaeval scholasticism. The professional schoolmaster was a match for both of them, and has almost managed to make the understanding of chemical reactions as dull and as dogmatic an affair as the reading of Virgil's Aeneid. The chief claim for the use of science in education is that it teaches a child something about the actual universe in which he is living, in making him acquainted with the results of scientific discovery, and at the same time teaches him how to think logically and inductively by studying scientific method. A certain limited success has been reached in the first of these aims, but practically none at all in the second. Those privileged members of the community who have been through a secondary or public school education may be expected to know something about the elementary physics and chemistry of a hundred years ago, but they probably know hardly more than any bright boy can pick up from an interest in wireless or scientific hobbies out of school hours. As to the learning of scientific method, the whole thing is palpably a farce. Actually, for the convenience of teachers and the requirements of the examination system, it is necessary that the pupils not only do not learn scientific method but learn precisely the reverse, that is, to believe exactly what they are told and to reproduce it when asked, whether it seems nonsense to them or not. The way in which educated people respond to such quackeries as spiritualism or astrology, not to say more dangerous ones such as racial theories or currency myths, shows that fifty years of  education in the method of science in Britain or Germany has  produced no visible effect whatever. The only way of learning the method of science is the long and bitter way of personal experience, and, until the educational or social systems are altered to make this possible, the best we can expect is the production of a minority of people who are able to acquire some of the techniques of science and a still smaller minority who are able to use and develop them.
Adapted from: The Social Function of Science, John D Bernal (1939). 

The authors apparently believes that secondary and public school education in the sciences is

A. severely limited in its benefits 
B. worse than that in the classics 
C. grossly incompetent 
D. a stimulus to critical thinking 
E. deliberately obscurantist.

The pioneers of the teaching of science imagined that its introduction into education would remove the conventionality, artificiality, and backward-lookingness which were characteristic; of classical studies, but they were gravely disappointed. So, too, in their time had the humanists thought that the study of the classical authors in the original would banish at once the dull pedantry and superstition of mediaeval scholasticism. The professional schoolmaster was a match for both of them, and has almost managed to make the understanding of chemical reactions as dull and as dogmatic an affair as the reading of Virgil's Aeneid. The chief claim for the use of science in education is that it teaches a child something about the actual universe in which he is living, in making him acquainted with the results of scientific discovery, and at the same time teaches him how to think logically and inductively by studying scientific method. A certain limited success has been reached in the first of these aims, but practically none at all in the second. Those privileged members of the community who have been through a secondary or public school education may be expected to know something about the elementary physics and chemistry of a hundred years ago, but they probably know hardly more than any bright boy can pick up from an interest in wireless or scientific hobbies out of school hours. As to the learning of scientific method, the whole thing is palpably a farce. Actually, for the convenience of teachers and the requirements of the examination system, it is necessary that the pupils not only do not learn scientific method but learn precisely the reverse, that is, to believe exactly what they are told and to reproduce it when asked, whether it seems nonsense to them or not. The way in which educated people respond to such quackeries as spiritualism or astrology, not to say more dangerous ones such as racial theories or currency myths, shows that fifty years of  education in the method of science in Britain or Germany has  produced no visible effect whatever. The only way of learning the method of science is the long and bitter way of personal experience, and, until the educational or social systems are altered to make this possible, the best we can expect is the production of a minority of people who are able to acquire some of the techniques of science and a still smaller minority who are able to use and develop them.
Adapted from: The Social Function of Science, John D Bernal (1939). 

All of the following can be inferred from the text except 

A. at the time of writing, not all children received a secondary school education 
B. the author finds chemical reactions interesting 
C. science teaching has imparted some knowledge of facts to some children 
D. the author believes that many teachers are authoritarian 
E. it is relatively easy to learn scientific method

It is exceedingly difficult to make people realize that an evil is an evil. For instance, we seize a man and deliberately do him a malicious injury: say, imprison him for years. One would not suppose that it needed any exceptional clearness of wit to recognize in this an act of diabolical cruelty. But in England  such a recognition provokes a stare of surprise, followed by an explanation that the outrage is punishment or justice or something else that is all right, or perhaps by a heated attempt to argue that we should all be robbed and murdered in our beds if such senseless villainies as sentences of imprisonment were not committed daily. It is useless to argue that even if this were true, which it is not, the alternative to adding crimes of our own to the crimes from which we suffer is not helpless submission. Chickenpox is an evil; but if I were to declare that we must either submit to it or else repress it by seizing everyone who suffers from it and punishing them by inoculation with smallpox, I should be laughed at; for though nobody could deny that the result would be to prevent chickenpox to some extent by making people avoid it much more carefully, and to effect a further apparent prevention by making them conceal it very anxiously, yet people would have sense enough to see that the deliberate propagation of smallpox was a creation of evil, and must therefore be ruled out in favor of purely humane and hygienic measures. Yet in the precisely parallel case of a man breaking into my house and stealing my diamonds I am expected as a matter of course to steal ten years of his life. If he tries to defeat that monstrous retaliation by shooting me, my survivors hang him. The net result suggested by the police statistics is that we inflict atrocious injuries on the burglars we catch in order to make the rest take effectua precautions against detection; so that instead of saving out diamonds from burglary we only greatly decrease our chances of ever getting them back, and increase our chances of being shot by the robber. 

It can be inferred from the passage that the author would agree with all the following except 

A. most people don't realize that by punishing offenders they are surrendering themselves to the vicious cycle of crime and punishment 
B. sentences of imprisonment have little success in reducing the crime rate in society 
C. it would be ridiculous to inoculate people suffering from chicken pox with small pox 
D. if criminals were not strongly punished for their misdeeds there would be no law and order in society 
E. tolerating poverty is at least as bad as inflicting punishments on criminals.

It is exceedingly difficult to make people realize that an evil is an evil. For instance, we seize a man and deliberately do him a malicious injury: say, imprison him for years. One would not suppose that it needed any exceptional clearness of wit to recognize in this an act of diabolical cruelty. But in England  such a recognition provokes a stare of surprise, followed by an explanation that the outrage is punishment or justice or something else that is all right, or perhaps by a heated attempt to argue that we should all be robbed and murdered in our beds if such senseless villainies as sentences of imprisonment were not committed daily. It is useless to argue that even if this were true, which it is not, the alternative to adding crimes of our own to the crimes from which we suffer is not helpless submission. Chickenpox is an evil; but if I were to declare that we must either submit to it or else repress it by seizing everyone who suffers from it and punishing them by inoculation with smallpox, I should be laughed at; for though nobody could deny that the result would be to prevent chickenpox to some extent by making people avoid it much more carefully, and to effect a further apparent prevention by making them conceal it very anxiously, yet people would have sense enough to see that the deliberate propagation of smallpox was a creation of evil, and must therefore be ruled out in favor of purely humane and hygienic measures. Yet in the precisely parallel case of a man breaking into my house and stealing my diamonds I am expected as a matter of course to steal ten years of his life. If he tries to defeat that monstrous retaliation by shooting me, my survivors hang him. The net result suggested by the police statistics is that we inflict atrocious injuries on the burglars we catch in order to make the rest take effectua precautions against detection; so that instead of saving out diamonds from burglary we only greatly decrease our chances of ever getting them back, and increase our chances of being shot by the robber.

The author apparently believes that people at the time he wrote the passage were 

A. inclined to consider poverty a social evil 
B. anxious to take the right steps to ensure an orderly society 
C. too ready to judge other people unfairly 
D. inconsistent in their attitude to poverty 
E. in favor of unusually harsh punishment of all offenders

It is exceedingly difficult to make people realize that an evil is an evil. For instance, we seize a man and deliberately do him a malicious injury: say, imprison him for years. One would not suppose that it needed any exceptional clearness of wit to recognize in this an act of diabolical cruelty. But in England  such a recognition provokes a stare of surprise, followed by an explanation that the outrage is punishment or justice or something else that is all right, or perhaps by a heated attempt to argue that we should all be robbed and murdered in our beds if such senseless villainies as sentences of imprisonment were not committed daily. It is useless to argue that even if this were true, which it is not, the alternative to adding crimes of our own to the crimes from which we suffer is not helpless submission. Chickenpox is an evil; but if I were to declare that we must either submit to it or else repress it by seizing everyone who suffers from it and punishing them by inoculation with smallpox, I should be laughed at; for though nobody could deny that the result would be to prevent chickenpox to some extent by making people avoid it much more carefully, and to effect a further apparent prevention by making them conceal it very anxiously, yet people would have sense enough to see that the deliberate propagation of smallpox was a creation of evil, and must therefore be ruled out in favor of purely humane and hygienic measures. Yet in the precisely parallel case of a man breaking into my house and stealing my diamonds I am expected as a matter of course to steal ten years of his life. If he tries to defeat that monstrous retaliation by shooting me, my survivors hang him. The net result suggested by the police statistics is that we inflict atrocious injuries on the burglars we catch in order to make the rest take effectua precautions against detection; so that instead of saving out diamonds from burglary we only greatly decrease our chances of ever getting them back, and increase our chances of being shot by the robber.

The passage is most probably intended to 

A. serve as an introduction to a more detailed discussion of poverty 
B. censure imprisonment as a punitive measure 
C. analyze the possible repercussions of social evils 
D. continue a prior discussion of strong measures against social evils 
E. make people recognize social evils in the face of deliberate obfuscation

It is exceedingly difficult to make people realize that an evil is an evil. For instance, we seize a man and deliberately do him a malicious injury: say, imprison him for years. One would not suppose that it needed any exceptional clearness of wit to recognize in this an act of diabolical cruelty. But in England  such a recognition provokes a stare of surprise, followed by an explanation that the outrage is punishment or justice or something else that is all right, or perhaps by a heated attempt to argue that we should all be robbed and murdered in our beds if such senseless villainies as sentences of imprisonment were not committed daily. It is useless to argue that even if this were true, which it is not, the alternative to adding crimes of our own to the crimes from which we suffer is not helpless submission. Chickenpox is an evil; but if I were to declare that we must either submit to it or else repress it by seizing everyone who suffers from it and punishing them by inoculation with smallpox, I should be laughed at; for though nobody could deny that the result would be to prevent chickenpox to some extent by making people avoid it much more carefully, and to effect a further apparent prevention by making them conceal it very anxiously, yet people would have sense enough to see that the deliberate propagation of smallpox was a creation of evil, and must therefore be ruled out in favor of purely humane and hygienic measures. Yet in the precisely parallel case of a man breaking into my house and stealing my diamonds I am expected as a matter of course to steal ten years of his life. If he tries to defeat that monstrous retaliation by shooting me, my survivors hang him. The net result suggested by the police statistics is that we inflict atrocious injuries on the burglars we catch in order to make the rest take effectua precautions against detection; so that instead of saving out diamonds from burglary we only greatly decrease our chances of ever getting them back, and increase our chances of being shot by the robber.

The authors argument about imprisonment would be most weakened by showing that 

A. imprisonment is not widely regarded as an act of cruelty 
B. chicken pox and burglary are not analogous evils 
C. imprisonment does not cause malicious injury 
D. sentences of imprisonment are given increasingly rarely 
E. a burglar who commits murder in self defense would not be hanged

Evolutionary psychology takes as its starting point the uncontroversial assertion that the anatomical and physiological features of the human brain have arisen as a result of adaptations to the demands of the environment over the millennia. However, from this reasonable point of departure, these psychologists make unreasonable extrapolations. They claim that the behavior of contemporary man (in almost all its aspects) is a reflection of features of the brain that acquired their present characteristics during those earliest days of our species when early man struggled to survive and multiply. This unwarranted assumption leads, for example, to suggestions that modern sexual behavior is dictated by realities of Pleistocene life. These suggestions have a ready audience, and the idea that Stone Age man is alive in our genome and dictating aspects of our behavior has gained ground in the popular imagination. The tabloids repeatedly run articles about discoveries relating to genes for aggression, depression, repression, and anything for which we need a readymade excuse. Such insistence on a genetic basis for behavior negates the cultural influences and the social realities that separate us from our ancestors. The difficulty with pseudoscience of this nature is just this popular appeal. People are eager to accept what is printed as incontrovertible, assuming quite without foundation, that anything printed has bona fide antecedents. We would do well to remember that the phrenologists of the nineteenth century held sway for a considerable time in the absence of any evidence that behavioral tendencies could be deduced from the shape of the skull. The phrenologists are no more, but their genes would seem to be thriving.

The author apparently believes that the journalists writing for the tabloids 

A. are more concerned with popular appeal than with authenticity 
B. believe that human behavior has a genetic basis 
C. run the same articles over and over again 
D. are victims of the human desire to excuse inexcusable behavior 
E. are highly irresponsible in their efforts to pander to the public