Question Description
Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Sub-passage – IThe announcement of the birth of the cloned ewe, Dolly, in 1997 by scientists at the Roslyn Institute, was a shock for the entire world. Up until that point, the issue of the morality and ethics of cloning had been relegated to discussions of purely theoretical nature. Because of the conceptual simplicity of the process used, in which an enucleated egg is implanted with the genetic material from a somatic cell, many people immediately saw that the actual instantiation of cloning a human being was a distinct possibility and a potential moral and ethical danger zone. We had not, as a species, ever truly considered the likelihood that human reproduction would fall so fully under the hand of technology. Though there are many detractors to the application of cloning technology to humans, human cloning technology can be used with responsibility to achieve a number of improvements to human experience. Consequently, I oppose the proposal to ban research into the cloning of human beings because the arguments used to support such a ban do not bear the weight of critical inspection, though the arguments themselves are also important to human advancement.The arguments in support of a ban on human cloning are numerous and varied. There are a number of arguments that appear with relative frequency and can be grouped under general headings that seem to express natural fears and misgivings about human cloning and humanity’s relationship to the process of cloning in a moral sense. The general summation of these arguments seems to present itself in a single statement that Cloning should be banned because it fosters the treatment of people as means, not ends, provides no clear benefits in exchange for risks, fosters the further ambiguities of kinship structures, and compromises the dignity and uniqueness of individuals.Sub-passage – IIPart of being a human being is to be unique. It makes one wonder what kind of people would really like to have a clone. Whoever they are, they will not succeed. We are not facing the crisis in the continuity of human kind. Cloning of a human being is not, and never will be possible because one significant component - the mind - can not be cloned.The only thing that can be cloned is the body. But, human being is not only the body. It is also the mind. The mind-body interaction seems to be unquestionable these days.That interaction is only a part of the whole network of interactions called "The Web of Interactions."This new and constantly developing conceptual framework suggests that each human being is a tripartite entity constituted of three: the material, social and personal being. All these beings are interconnected by interactions. Their constituents such as: mind, perception, beliefs, judgments and actions can all be defined in terms of interactions.On that account the mind is a result of an interaction between the brain and the world.The world is not a stable entity. That means that the state of the world that created the mind of person X can not be repeated. If that is the case then the mind of the person X will not be the clone of person X. If the mind can not be a clone, there is no chance to clone a person.Q.What is the “danger zone” mentioned in passage I?a)That there can be repercussions other than the obvious technical and scientific repercussions.b)There can be a question of limitation and delimitation where technology is concerned.c)The apparent simplicity of the process can misguide the people & lead them to believe in its probity.d)That it can lead to the `for and against` split in the scientific community.e)That it may endanger the uniqueness of human race.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Sub-passage – IThe announcement of the birth of the cloned ewe, Dolly, in 1997 by scientists at the Roslyn Institute, was a shock for the entire world. Up until that point, the issue of the morality and ethics of cloning had been relegated to discussions of purely theoretical nature. Because of the conceptual simplicity of the process used, in which an enucleated egg is implanted with the genetic material from a somatic cell, many people immediately saw that the actual instantiation of cloning a human being was a distinct possibility and a potential moral and ethical danger zone. We had not, as a species, ever truly considered the likelihood that human reproduction would fall so fully under the hand of technology. Though there are many detractors to the application of cloning technology to humans, human cloning technology can be used with responsibility to achieve a number of improvements to human experience. Consequently, I oppose the proposal to ban research into the cloning of human beings because the arguments used to support such a ban do not bear the weight of critical inspection, though the arguments themselves are also important to human advancement.The arguments in support of a ban on human cloning are numerous and varied. There are a number of arguments that appear with relative frequency and can be grouped under general headings that seem to express natural fears and misgivings about human cloning and humanity’s relationship to the process of cloning in a moral sense. The general summation of these arguments seems to present itself in a single statement that Cloning should be banned because it fosters the treatment of people as means, not ends, provides no clear benefits in exchange for risks, fosters the further ambiguities of kinship structures, and compromises the dignity and uniqueness of individuals.Sub-passage – IIPart of being a human being is to be unique. It makes one wonder what kind of people would really like to have a clone. Whoever they are, they will not succeed. We are not facing the crisis in the continuity of human kind. Cloning of a human being is not, and never will be possible because one significant component - the mind - can not be cloned.The only thing that can be cloned is the body. But, human being is not only the body. It is also the mind. The mind-body interaction seems to be unquestionable these days.That interaction is only a part of the whole network of interactions called "The Web of Interactions."This new and constantly developing conceptual framework suggests that each human being is a tripartite entity constituted of three: the material, social and personal being. All these beings are interconnected by interactions. Their constituents such as: mind, perception, beliefs, judgments and actions can all be defined in terms of interactions.On that account the mind is a result of an interaction between the brain and the world.The world is not a stable entity. That means that the state of the world that created the mind of person X can not be repeated. If that is the case then the mind of the person X will not be the clone of person X. If the mind can not be a clone, there is no chance to clone a person.Q.What is the “danger zone” mentioned in passage I?a)That there can be repercussions other than the obvious technical and scientific repercussions.b)There can be a question of limitation and delimitation where technology is concerned.c)The apparent simplicity of the process can misguide the people & lead them to believe in its probity.d)That it can lead to the `for and against` split in the scientific community.e)That it may endanger the uniqueness of human race.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Sub-passage – IThe announcement of the birth of the cloned ewe, Dolly, in 1997 by scientists at the Roslyn Institute, was a shock for the entire world. Up until that point, the issue of the morality and ethics of cloning had been relegated to discussions of purely theoretical nature. Because of the conceptual simplicity of the process used, in which an enucleated egg is implanted with the genetic material from a somatic cell, many people immediately saw that the actual instantiation of cloning a human being was a distinct possibility and a potential moral and ethical danger zone. We had not, as a species, ever truly considered the likelihood that human reproduction would fall so fully under the hand of technology. Though there are many detractors to the application of cloning technology to humans, human cloning technology can be used with responsibility to achieve a number of improvements to human experience. Consequently, I oppose the proposal to ban research into the cloning of human beings because the arguments used to support such a ban do not bear the weight of critical inspection, though the arguments themselves are also important to human advancement.The arguments in support of a ban on human cloning are numerous and varied. There are a number of arguments that appear with relative frequency and can be grouped under general headings that seem to express natural fears and misgivings about human cloning and humanity’s relationship to the process of cloning in a moral sense. The general summation of these arguments seems to present itself in a single statement that Cloning should be banned because it fosters the treatment of people as means, not ends, provides no clear benefits in exchange for risks, fosters the further ambiguities of kinship structures, and compromises the dignity and uniqueness of individuals.Sub-passage – IIPart of being a human being is to be unique. It makes one wonder what kind of people would really like to have a clone. Whoever they are, they will not succeed. We are not facing the crisis in the continuity of human kind. Cloning of a human being is not, and never will be possible because one significant component - the mind - can not be cloned.The only thing that can be cloned is the body. But, human being is not only the body. It is also the mind. The mind-body interaction seems to be unquestionable these days.That interaction is only a part of the whole network of interactions called "The Web of Interactions."This new and constantly developing conceptual framework suggests that each human being is a tripartite entity constituted of three: the material, social and personal being. All these beings are interconnected by interactions. Their constituents such as: mind, perception, beliefs, judgments and actions can all be defined in terms of interactions.On that account the mind is a result of an interaction between the brain and the world.The world is not a stable entity. That means that the state of the world that created the mind of person X can not be repeated. If that is the case then the mind of the person X will not be the clone of person X. If the mind can not be a clone, there is no chance to clone a person.Q.What is the “danger zone” mentioned in passage I?a)That there can be repercussions other than the obvious technical and scientific repercussions.b)There can be a question of limitation and delimitation where technology is concerned.c)The apparent simplicity of the process can misguide the people & lead them to believe in its probity.d)That it can lead to the `for and against` split in the scientific community.e)That it may endanger the uniqueness of human race.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Sub-passage – IThe announcement of the birth of the cloned ewe, Dolly, in 1997 by scientists at the Roslyn Institute, was a shock for the entire world. Up until that point, the issue of the morality and ethics of cloning had been relegated to discussions of purely theoretical nature. Because of the conceptual simplicity of the process used, in which an enucleated egg is implanted with the genetic material from a somatic cell, many people immediately saw that the actual instantiation of cloning a human being was a distinct possibility and a potential moral and ethical danger zone. We had not, as a species, ever truly considered the likelihood that human reproduction would fall so fully under the hand of technology. Though there are many detractors to the application of cloning technology to humans, human cloning technology can be used with responsibility to achieve a number of improvements to human experience. Consequently, I oppose the proposal to ban research into the cloning of human beings because the arguments used to support such a ban do not bear the weight of critical inspection, though the arguments themselves are also important to human advancement.The arguments in support of a ban on human cloning are numerous and varied. There are a number of arguments that appear with relative frequency and can be grouped under general headings that seem to express natural fears and misgivings about human cloning and humanity’s relationship to the process of cloning in a moral sense. The general summation of these arguments seems to present itself in a single statement that Cloning should be banned because it fosters the treatment of people as means, not ends, provides no clear benefits in exchange for risks, fosters the further ambiguities of kinship structures, and compromises the dignity and uniqueness of individuals.Sub-passage – IIPart of being a human being is to be unique. It makes one wonder what kind of people would really like to have a clone. Whoever they are, they will not succeed. We are not facing the crisis in the continuity of human kind. Cloning of a human being is not, and never will be possible because one significant component - the mind - can not be cloned.The only thing that can be cloned is the body. But, human being is not only the body. It is also the mind. The mind-body interaction seems to be unquestionable these days.That interaction is only a part of the whole network of interactions called "The Web of Interactions."This new and constantly developing conceptual framework suggests that each human being is a tripartite entity constituted of three: the material, social and personal being. All these beings are interconnected by interactions. Their constituents such as: mind, perception, beliefs, judgments and actions can all be defined in terms of interactions.On that account the mind is a result of an interaction between the brain and the world.The world is not a stable entity. That means that the state of the world that created the mind of person X can not be repeated. If that is the case then the mind of the person X will not be the clone of person X. If the mind can not be a clone, there is no chance to clone a person.Q.What is the “danger zone” mentioned in passage I?a)That there can be repercussions other than the obvious technical and scientific repercussions.b)There can be a question of limitation and delimitation where technology is concerned.c)The apparent simplicity of the process can misguide the people & lead them to believe in its probity.d)That it can lead to the `for and against` split in the scientific community.e)That it may endanger the uniqueness of human race.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Sub-passage – IThe announcement of the birth of the cloned ewe, Dolly, in 1997 by scientists at the Roslyn Institute, was a shock for the entire world. Up until that point, the issue of the morality and ethics of cloning had been relegated to discussions of purely theoretical nature. Because of the conceptual simplicity of the process used, in which an enucleated egg is implanted with the genetic material from a somatic cell, many people immediately saw that the actual instantiation of cloning a human being was a distinct possibility and a potential moral and ethical danger zone. We had not, as a species, ever truly considered the likelihood that human reproduction would fall so fully under the hand of technology. Though there are many detractors to the application of cloning technology to humans, human cloning technology can be used with responsibility to achieve a number of improvements to human experience. Consequently, I oppose the proposal to ban research into the cloning of human beings because the arguments used to support such a ban do not bear the weight of critical inspection, though the arguments themselves are also important to human advancement.The arguments in support of a ban on human cloning are numerous and varied. There are a number of arguments that appear with relative frequency and can be grouped under general headings that seem to express natural fears and misgivings about human cloning and humanity’s relationship to the process of cloning in a moral sense. The general summation of these arguments seems to present itself in a single statement that Cloning should be banned because it fosters the treatment of people as means, not ends, provides no clear benefits in exchange for risks, fosters the further ambiguities of kinship structures, and compromises the dignity and uniqueness of individuals.Sub-passage – IIPart of being a human being is to be unique. It makes one wonder what kind of people would really like to have a clone. Whoever they are, they will not succeed. We are not facing the crisis in the continuity of human kind. Cloning of a human being is not, and never will be possible because one significant component - the mind - can not be cloned.The only thing that can be cloned is the body. But, human being is not only the body. It is also the mind. The mind-body interaction seems to be unquestionable these days.That interaction is only a part of the whole network of interactions called "The Web of Interactions."This new and constantly developing conceptual framework suggests that each human being is a tripartite entity constituted of three: the material, social and personal being. All these beings are interconnected by interactions. Their constituents such as: mind, perception, beliefs, judgments and actions can all be defined in terms of interactions.On that account the mind is a result of an interaction between the brain and the world.The world is not a stable entity. That means that the state of the world that created the mind of person X can not be repeated. If that is the case then the mind of the person X will not be the clone of person X. If the mind can not be a clone, there is no chance to clone a person.Q.What is the “danger zone” mentioned in passage I?a)That there can be repercussions other than the obvious technical and scientific repercussions.b)There can be a question of limitation and delimitation where technology is concerned.c)The apparent simplicity of the process can misguide the people & lead them to believe in its probity.d)That it can lead to the `for and against` split in the scientific community.e)That it may endanger the uniqueness of human race.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Sub-passage – IThe announcement of the birth of the cloned ewe, Dolly, in 1997 by scientists at the Roslyn Institute, was a shock for the entire world. Up until that point, the issue of the morality and ethics of cloning had been relegated to discussions of purely theoretical nature. Because of the conceptual simplicity of the process used, in which an enucleated egg is implanted with the genetic material from a somatic cell, many people immediately saw that the actual instantiation of cloning a human being was a distinct possibility and a potential moral and ethical danger zone. We had not, as a species, ever truly considered the likelihood that human reproduction would fall so fully under the hand of technology. Though there are many detractors to the application of cloning technology to humans, human cloning technology can be used with responsibility to achieve a number of improvements to human experience. Consequently, I oppose the proposal to ban research into the cloning of human beings because the arguments used to support such a ban do not bear the weight of critical inspection, though the arguments themselves are also important to human advancement.The arguments in support of a ban on human cloning are numerous and varied. There are a number of arguments that appear with relative frequency and can be grouped under general headings that seem to express natural fears and misgivings about human cloning and humanity’s relationship to the process of cloning in a moral sense. The general summation of these arguments seems to present itself in a single statement that Cloning should be banned because it fosters the treatment of people as means, not ends, provides no clear benefits in exchange for risks, fosters the further ambiguities of kinship structures, and compromises the dignity and uniqueness of individuals.Sub-passage – IIPart of being a human being is to be unique. It makes one wonder what kind of people would really like to have a clone. Whoever they are, they will not succeed. We are not facing the crisis in the continuity of human kind. Cloning of a human being is not, and never will be possible because one significant component - the mind - can not be cloned.The only thing that can be cloned is the body. But, human being is not only the body. It is also the mind. The mind-body interaction seems to be unquestionable these days.That interaction is only a part of the whole network of interactions called "The Web of Interactions."This new and constantly developing conceptual framework suggests that each human being is a tripartite entity constituted of three: the material, social and personal being. All these beings are interconnected by interactions. Their constituents such as: mind, perception, beliefs, judgments and actions can all be defined in terms of interactions.On that account the mind is a result of an interaction between the brain and the world.The world is not a stable entity. That means that the state of the world that created the mind of person X can not be repeated. If that is the case then the mind of the person X will not be the clone of person X. If the mind can not be a clone, there is no chance to clone a person.Q.What is the “danger zone” mentioned in passage I?a)That there can be repercussions other than the obvious technical and scientific repercussions.b)There can be a question of limitation and delimitation where technology is concerned.c)The apparent simplicity of the process can misguide the people & lead them to believe in its probity.d)That it can lead to the `for and against` split in the scientific community.e)That it may endanger the uniqueness of human race.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Sub-passage – IThe announcement of the birth of the cloned ewe, Dolly, in 1997 by scientists at the Roslyn Institute, was a shock for the entire world. Up until that point, the issue of the morality and ethics of cloning had been relegated to discussions of purely theoretical nature. Because of the conceptual simplicity of the process used, in which an enucleated egg is implanted with the genetic material from a somatic cell, many people immediately saw that the actual instantiation of cloning a human being was a distinct possibility and a potential moral and ethical danger zone. We had not, as a species, ever truly considered the likelihood that human reproduction would fall so fully under the hand of technology. Though there are many detractors to the application of cloning technology to humans, human cloning technology can be used with responsibility to achieve a number of improvements to human experience. Consequently, I oppose the proposal to ban research into the cloning of human beings because the arguments used to support such a ban do not bear the weight of critical inspection, though the arguments themselves are also important to human advancement.The arguments in support of a ban on human cloning are numerous and varied. There are a number of arguments that appear with relative frequency and can be grouped under general headings that seem to express natural fears and misgivings about human cloning and humanity’s relationship to the process of cloning in a moral sense. The general summation of these arguments seems to present itself in a single statement that Cloning should be banned because it fosters the treatment of people as means, not ends, provides no clear benefits in exchange for risks, fosters the further ambiguities of kinship structures, and compromises the dignity and uniqueness of individuals.Sub-passage – IIPart of being a human being is to be unique. It makes one wonder what kind of people would really like to have a clone. Whoever they are, they will not succeed. We are not facing the crisis in the continuity of human kind. Cloning of a human being is not, and never will be possible because one significant component - the mind - can not be cloned.The only thing that can be cloned is the body. But, human being is not only the body. It is also the mind. The mind-body interaction seems to be unquestionable these days.That interaction is only a part of the whole network of interactions called "The Web of Interactions."This new and constantly developing conceptual framework suggests that each human being is a tripartite entity constituted of three: the material, social and personal being. All these beings are interconnected by interactions. Their constituents such as: mind, perception, beliefs, judgments and actions can all be defined in terms of interactions.On that account the mind is a result of an interaction between the brain and the world.The world is not a stable entity. That means that the state of the world that created the mind of person X can not be repeated. If that is the case then the mind of the person X will not be the clone of person X. If the mind can not be a clone, there is no chance to clone a person.Q.What is the “danger zone” mentioned in passage I?a)That there can be repercussions other than the obvious technical and scientific repercussions.b)There can be a question of limitation and delimitation where technology is concerned.c)The apparent simplicity of the process can misguide the people & lead them to believe in its probity.d)That it can lead to the `for and against` split in the scientific community.e)That it may endanger the uniqueness of human race.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Sub-passage – IThe announcement of the birth of the cloned ewe, Dolly, in 1997 by scientists at the Roslyn Institute, was a shock for the entire world. Up until that point, the issue of the morality and ethics of cloning had been relegated to discussions of purely theoretical nature. Because of the conceptual simplicity of the process used, in which an enucleated egg is implanted with the genetic material from a somatic cell, many people immediately saw that the actual instantiation of cloning a human being was a distinct possibility and a potential moral and ethical danger zone. We had not, as a species, ever truly considered the likelihood that human reproduction would fall so fully under the hand of technology. Though there are many detractors to the application of cloning technology to humans, human cloning technology can be used with responsibility to achieve a number of improvements to human experience. Consequently, I oppose the proposal to ban research into the cloning of human beings because the arguments used to support such a ban do not bear the weight of critical inspection, though the arguments themselves are also important to human advancement.The arguments in support of a ban on human cloning are numerous and varied. There are a number of arguments that appear with relative frequency and can be grouped under general headings that seem to express natural fears and misgivings about human cloning and humanity’s relationship to the process of cloning in a moral sense. The general summation of these arguments seems to present itself in a single statement that Cloning should be banned because it fosters the treatment of people as means, not ends, provides no clear benefits in exchange for risks, fosters the further ambiguities of kinship structures, and compromises the dignity and uniqueness of individuals.Sub-passage – IIPart of being a human being is to be unique. It makes one wonder what kind of people would really like to have a clone. Whoever they are, they will not succeed. We are not facing the crisis in the continuity of human kind. Cloning of a human being is not, and never will be possible because one significant component - the mind - can not be cloned.The only thing that can be cloned is the body. But, human being is not only the body. It is also the mind. The mind-body interaction seems to be unquestionable these days.That interaction is only a part of the whole network of interactions called "The Web of Interactions."This new and constantly developing conceptual framework suggests that each human being is a tripartite entity constituted of three: the material, social and personal being. All these beings are interconnected by interactions. Their constituents such as: mind, perception, beliefs, judgments and actions can all be defined in terms of interactions.On that account the mind is a result of an interaction between the brain and the world.The world is not a stable entity. That means that the state of the world that created the mind of person X can not be repeated. If that is the case then the mind of the person X will not be the clone of person X. If the mind can not be a clone, there is no chance to clone a person.Q.What is the “danger zone” mentioned in passage I?a)That there can be repercussions other than the obvious technical and scientific repercussions.b)There can be a question of limitation and delimitation where technology is concerned.c)The apparent simplicity of the process can misguide the people & lead them to believe in its probity.d)That it can lead to the `for and against` split in the scientific community.e)That it may endanger the uniqueness of human race.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Sub-passage – IThe announcement of the birth of the cloned ewe, Dolly, in 1997 by scientists at the Roslyn Institute, was a shock for the entire world. Up until that point, the issue of the morality and ethics of cloning had been relegated to discussions of purely theoretical nature. Because of the conceptual simplicity of the process used, in which an enucleated egg is implanted with the genetic material from a somatic cell, many people immediately saw that the actual instantiation of cloning a human being was a distinct possibility and a potential moral and ethical danger zone. We had not, as a species, ever truly considered the likelihood that human reproduction would fall so fully under the hand of technology. Though there are many detractors to the application of cloning technology to humans, human cloning technology can be used with responsibility to achieve a number of improvements to human experience. Consequently, I oppose the proposal to ban research into the cloning of human beings because the arguments used to support such a ban do not bear the weight of critical inspection, though the arguments themselves are also important to human advancement.The arguments in support of a ban on human cloning are numerous and varied. There are a number of arguments that appear with relative frequency and can be grouped under general headings that seem to express natural fears and misgivings about human cloning and humanity’s relationship to the process of cloning in a moral sense. The general summation of these arguments seems to present itself in a single statement that Cloning should be banned because it fosters the treatment of people as means, not ends, provides no clear benefits in exchange for risks, fosters the further ambiguities of kinship structures, and compromises the dignity and uniqueness of individuals.Sub-passage – IIPart of being a human being is to be unique. It makes one wonder what kind of people would really like to have a clone. Whoever they are, they will not succeed. We are not facing the crisis in the continuity of human kind. Cloning of a human being is not, and never will be possible because one significant component - the mind - can not be cloned.The only thing that can be cloned is the body. But, human being is not only the body. It is also the mind. The mind-body interaction seems to be unquestionable these days.That interaction is only a part of the whole network of interactions called "The Web of Interactions."This new and constantly developing conceptual framework suggests that each human being is a tripartite entity constituted of three: the material, social and personal being. All these beings are interconnected by interactions. Their constituents such as: mind, perception, beliefs, judgments and actions can all be defined in terms of interactions.On that account the mind is a result of an interaction between the brain and the world.The world is not a stable entity. That means that the state of the world that created the mind of person X can not be repeated. If that is the case then the mind of the person X will not be the clone of person X. If the mind can not be a clone, there is no chance to clone a person.Q.What is the “danger zone” mentioned in passage I?a)That there can be repercussions other than the obvious technical and scientific repercussions.b)There can be a question of limitation and delimitation where technology is concerned.c)The apparent simplicity of the process can misguide the people & lead them to believe in its probity.d)That it can lead to the `for and against` split in the scientific community.e)That it may endanger the uniqueness of human race.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.