XAT Verbal And Logical Ability MCQ Quiz - 3 - CAT MCQ

Popular culture (or pop culture) is the culture-patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activities significance and importance - which are popular, well-liked or common. Popular culture is deemed as what is popular within the social context - that of which is most strongly represented by what is perceived to be popularly accepted among society. Otherwise, popular culture is also suggested to be the widespread cultural elements in any given society that are perpetuated through that society's vernacular language. It can include any number of practices, including those pertaining to cooking, clothing, consumption, mass media and the many facets of entertainment such as sports and literature. 

Fifteenth century law and politics used the word ‘popular’ to indicate something crude, but in the late eighteenth century ‘popular’ ceased to be a favourite cussing word and started to denote what is prevalent in society.

Pop culture finds its expression in the mass circulation of items from areas such as fashion, music, design, sport and film. The world of pop culture has had a particular influence on art from the 1950s on through Pop Art, first in Britain and later in the United States. Popular culture comes under heavy criticism from various sources (most notably religious groups) which deem it superficial, consumerist, sensationalist and corrupted. The meaning of popular and the meaning of culture are essentially contested concepts and there are multiple competing definitions of popular culture. John Storey, in Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, discusses six definitions. 

The quantitative definition, of culture has the problem that much “high” culture (e.g. television dramatisations of Jane Austen) is widely favoured. “Pop culture” can also be defined as the culture that is “left over” when we have decided what “high culture” is. However, many works straddle or cross the boundaries e.g. William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Puccini-Verdi-Pavarotti- Nessun Dorma. Storey draws attention to the forces and relations which sustain this difference such as the educational system. A third definition equates pop culture with mass culture. This is seen as a commercial culture, mass produced for mass consumption. From a U.K. (and European) point of view, this may be equated to American culture. 

Alternatively, “pop culture” can be defined as an “authentic” culture of the people, but this can be problematic because there are many ways of defining the “ people” . Storey argues that there is a political dimension to popular culture; neo-Gramscian hegemony theory “ ... sees popular culture as a site of struggle between the ‘resistance’ of subordinate groups in society and the forces of ‘incorporation’ operating in the interests of dominant groups in society” . A postmodernism approach to popular culture would “no longer recognise the distinction between high and popular culture”.
Popular culture changes constantly and occurs uniquely in place and time. It forms currents and eddies, and represents a complex of mutually-interdependent perspectives and values that influence society and its institutions in various ways. For example, certain currents of pop culture may originate from, (or diverge into) a subculture, representing perspectives with which the mainstream popular culture has only limited familiarity. Items of popular culture most typically appeal to a broad spectrum of the public.
The news media mines the work of scientists and scholars and conveys it to the general public, often emphasizing “factoids” that have inherent appeal or the power to amaze. For instance, giant pandas (a species in remote Chinese woodlands) have become well-known items of popular culture; parasitic worms, though of greater practical importance, have not. Both scholarly facts and news stories get modified through popular transmission, often to the point of outright falsehoods. 

Hannah Arendt’s 1961 essay The Crisis in Culture suggested that a “market-driven media would lead to the displacement of culture by the dictates of entertainment” . Susan Sontag argues that in our culture, the most “...intelligible, persuasive values are [increasingly] drawn from the entertainment industries” , which is “ undermining of standards of seriousness” . As a result, “ tepid, the glib, and the senselessly cruel” topics are becoming the norm. Some critics argue that popular culture is “dumbing down”: “...newspapers that once ran foreign news now feature celebrity gossip, pictures of scantily dressed young ladies...television has replaced high-quality drama with gardening, cookery, and other “lifestyle” programmes... [and] reality TV and asinine soaps, “ to the point that people are constantly immersed in trivia about celebrity culture” . 

In Rosenberg and White’s book Mass Culture, MacDonald argues that “Popular culture is a debased, trivial culture that voids both the deep realities (sex, death, failure, tragedy) and also the simple spontaneous pleasures... The masses, debauched by several generations of this sort of thing, in turn come to demand trivial and comfortable cultural products.” Van den Haag argues that “ ...all mass media in the end alienate people from personal experience and though appearing to offset it, intensify their moral isolation from each other, from reality and from themselves." He argues that mass media then lessens “...people's capacity to experience life itself.”

Critics have lamented the replacement of high art and authentic folk culture by tasteless industrialised artefacts produced on a mass scale in order to satisfy the lowest common denominator." This "mass culture emerged after the Second World War and have led to the concentration of mass-culture power in ever larger global media conglomerates." The popular press decreased the amount of news or information and replaced it with entertainment or filiation that reinforces"... fears, prejudice, scapegoating processes, paranoia, and aggression." 

Critics of television and film have argued that the quality of TV output has been diluted as stations relentlessly pursue "populism and ratings" by focusing on the "glitzy, the superficial, and the popular." In film, "Hollywood culture and values" are increasingly dominating film production in other countries. Hollywood films have changed from focusing on scriptwriting and dialogue to creating formulaic films which emphasize "...shock-value and superficial thrill[s]" and special effects, with themes that focus on the "...basic instincts of aggression, revenge, violence and greed."

Q. Based on Storey’s work, which of these cannot be considered to be definitions of popular culture?

Popular culture (or pop culture) is the culture-patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activities significance and importance - which are popular, well-liked or common. Popular culture is deemed as what is popular within the social context - that of which is most strongly represented by what is perceived to be popularly accepted among society. Otherwise, popular culture is also suggested to be the widespread cultural elements in any given society that are perpetuated through that society's vernacular language. It can include any number of practices, including those pertaining to cooking, clothing, consumption, mass media and the many facets of entertainment such as sports and literature. 

Fifteenth century law and politics used the word ‘popular’ to indicate something crude, but in the late eighteenth century ‘popular’ ceased to be a favourite cussing word and started to denote what is prevalent in society.

Pop culture finds its expression in the mass circulation of items from areas such as fashion, music, design, sport and film. The world of pop culture has had a particular influence on art from the 1950s on through Pop Art, first in Britain and later in the United States. Popular culture comes under heavy criticism from various sources (most notably religious groups) which deem it superficial, consumerist, sensationalist and corrupted. The meaning of popular and the meaning of culture are essentially contested concepts and there are multiple competing definitions of popular culture. John Storey, in Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, discusses six definitions. 

The quantitative definition, of culture has the problem that much “high” culture (e.g. television dramatisations of Jane Austen) is widely favoured. “Pop culture” can also be defined as the culture that is “left over” when we have decided what “high culture” is. However, many works straddle or cross the boundaries e.g. William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Puccini-Verdi-Pavarotti- Nessun Dorma. Storey draws attention to the forces and relations which sustain this difference such as the educational system. A third definition equates pop culture with mass culture. This is seen as a commercial culture, mass produced for mass consumption. From a U.K. (and European) point of view, this may be equated to American culture. 

Alternatively, “pop culture” can be defined as an “authentic” culture of the people, but this can be problematic because there are many ways of defining the “ people” . Storey argues that there is a political dimension to popular culture; neo-Gramscian hegemony theory “ ... sees popular culture as a site of struggle between the ‘resistance’ of subordinate groups in society and the forces of ‘incorporation’ operating in the interests of dominant groups in society” . A postmodernism approach to popular culture would “no longer recognise the distinction between high and popular culture”.
Popular culture changes constantly and occurs uniquely in place and time. It forms currents and eddies, and represents a complex of mutually-interdependent perspectives and values that influence society and its institutions in various ways. For example, certain currents of pop culture may originate from, (or diverge into) a subculture, representing perspectives with which the mainstream popular culture has only limited familiarity. Items of popular culture most typically appeal to a broad spectrum of the public.
The news media mines the work of scientists and scholars and conveys it to the general public, often emphasizing “factoids” that have inherent appeal or the power to amaze. For instance, giant pandas (a species in remote Chinese woodlands) have become well-known items of popular culture; parasitic worms, though of greater practical importance, have not. Both scholarly facts and news stories get modified through popular transmission, often to the point of outright falsehoods. 

Hannah Arendt’s 1961 essay The Crisis in Culture suggested that a “market-driven media would lead to the displacement of culture by the dictates of entertainment” . Susan Sontag argues that in our culture, the most “...intelligible, persuasive values are [increasingly] drawn from the entertainment industries” , which is “ undermining of standards of seriousness” . As a result, “ tepid, the glib, and the senselessly cruel” topics are becoming the norm. Some critics argue that popular culture is “dumbing down”: “...newspapers that once ran foreign news now feature celebrity gossip, pictures of scantily dressed young ladies...television has replaced high-quality drama with gardening, cookery, and other “lifestyle” programmes... [and] reality TV and asinine soaps, “ to the point that people are constantly immersed in trivia about celebrity culture” . 

In Rosenberg and White’s book Mass Culture, MacDonald argues that “Popular culture is a debased, trivial culture that voids both the deep realities (sex, death, failure, tragedy) and also the simple spontaneous pleasures... The masses, debauched by several generations of this sort of thing, in turn come to demand trivial and comfortable cultural products.” Van den Haag argues that “ ...all mass media in the end alienate people from personal experience and though appearing to offset it, intensify their moral isolation from each other, from reality and from themselves." He argues that mass media then lessens “...people's capacity to experience life itself.”

Critics have lamented the replacement of high art and authentic folk culture by tasteless industrialised artefacts produced on a mass scale in order to satisfy the lowest common denominator." This "mass culture emerged after the Second World War and have led to the concentration of mass-culture power in ever larger global media conglomerates." The popular press decreased the amount of news or information and replaced it with entertainment or filiation that reinforces"... fears, prejudice, scapegoating processes, paranoia, and aggression." 

Critics of television and film have argued that the quality of TV output has been diluted as stations relentlessly pursue "populism and ratings" by focusing on the "glitzy, the superficial, and the popular." In film, "Hollywood culture and values" are increasingly dominating film production in other countries. Hollywood films have changed from focusing on scriptwriting and dialogue to creating formulaic films which emphasize "...shock-value and superficial thrill[s]" and special effects, with themes that focus on the "...basic instincts of aggression, revenge, violence and greed."

Q. In the context of this passage, what does the word ‘debauched’ mean?

Popular culture (or pop culture) is the culture-patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activities significance and importance - which are popular, well-liked or common. Popular culture is deemed as what is popular within the social context - that of which is most strongly represented by what is perceived to be popularly accepted among society. Otherwise, popular culture is also suggested to be the widespread cultural elements in any given society that are perpetuated through that society's vernacular language. It can include any number of practices, including those pertaining to cooking, clothing, consumption, mass media and the many facets of entertainment such as sports and literature. 

Fifteenth century law and politics used the word ‘popular’ to indicate something crude, but in the late eighteenth century ‘popular’ ceased to be a favourite cussing word and started to denote what is prevalent in society.

Pop culture finds its expression in the mass circulation of items from areas such as fashion, music, design, sport and film. The world of pop culture has had a particular influence on art from the 1950s on through Pop Art, first in Britain and later in the United States. Popular culture comes under heavy criticism from various sources (most notably religious groups) which deem it superficial, consumerist, sensationalist and corrupted. The meaning of popular and the meaning of culture are essentially contested concepts and there are multiple competing definitions of popular culture. John Storey, in Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, discusses six definitions. 

The quantitative definition, of culture has the problem that much “high” culture (e.g. television dramatisations of Jane Austen) is widely favoured. “Pop culture” can also be defined as the culture that is “left over” when we have decided what “high culture” is. However, many works straddle or cross the boundaries e.g. William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Puccini-Verdi-Pavarotti- Nessun Dorma. Storey draws attention to the forces and relations which sustain this difference such as the educational system. A third definition equates pop culture with mass culture. This is seen as a commercial culture, mass produced for mass consumption. From a U.K. (and European) point of view, this may be equated to American culture. 

Alternatively, “pop culture” can be defined as an “authentic” culture of the people, but this can be problematic because there are many ways of defining the “ people” . Storey argues that there is a political dimension to popular culture; neo-Gramscian hegemony theory “ ... sees popular culture as a site of struggle between the ‘resistance’ of subordinate groups in society and the forces of ‘incorporation’ operating in the interests of dominant groups in society” . A postmodernism approach to popular culture would “no longer recognise the distinction between high and popular culture”.
Popular culture changes constantly and occurs uniquely in place and time. It forms currents and eddies, and represents a complex of mutually-interdependent perspectives and values that influence society and its institutions in various ways. For example, certain currents of pop culture may originate from, (or diverge into) a subculture, representing perspectives with which the mainstream popular culture has only limited familiarity. Items of popular culture most typically appeal to a broad spectrum of the public.
The news media mines the work of scientists and scholars and conveys it to the general public, often emphasizing “factoids” that have inherent appeal or the power to amaze. For instance, giant pandas (a species in remote Chinese woodlands) have become well-known items of popular culture; parasitic worms, though of greater practical importance, have not. Both scholarly facts and news stories get modified through popular transmission, often to the point of outright falsehoods. 

Hannah Arendt’s 1961 essay The Crisis in Culture suggested that a “market-driven media would lead to the displacement of culture by the dictates of entertainment” . Susan Sontag argues that in our culture, the most “...intelligible, persuasive values are [increasingly] drawn from the entertainment industries” , which is “ undermining of standards of seriousness” . As a result, “ tepid, the glib, and the senselessly cruel” topics are becoming the norm. Some critics argue that popular culture is “dumbing down”: “...newspapers that once ran foreign news now feature celebrity gossip, pictures of scantily dressed young ladies...television has replaced high-quality drama with gardening, cookery, and other “lifestyle” programmes... [and] reality TV and asinine soaps, “ to the point that people are constantly immersed in trivia about celebrity culture” . 

In Rosenberg and White’s book Mass Culture, MacDonald argues that “Popular culture is a debased, trivial culture that voids both the deep realities (sex, death, failure, tragedy) and also the simple spontaneous pleasures... The masses, debauched by several generations of this sort of thing, in turn come to demand trivial and comfortable cultural products.” Van den Haag argues that “ ...all mass media in the end alienate people from personal experience and though appearing to offset it, intensify their moral isolation from each other, from reality and from themselves." He argues that mass media then lessens “...people's capacity to experience life itself.”

Critics have lamented the replacement of high art and authentic folk culture by tasteless industrialised artefacts produced on a mass scale in order to satisfy the lowest common denominator." This "mass culture emerged after the Second World War and have led to the concentration of mass-culture power in ever larger global media conglomerates." The popular press decreased the amount of news or information and replaced it with entertainment or filiation that reinforces"... fears, prejudice, scapegoating processes, paranoia, and aggression." 

Critics of television and film have argued that the quality of TV output has been diluted as stations relentlessly pursue "populism and ratings" by focusing on the "glitzy, the superficial, and the popular." In film, "Hollywood culture and values" are increasingly dominating film production in other countries. Hollywood films have changed from focusing on scriptwriting and dialogue to creating formulaic films which emphasize "...shock-value and superficial thrill[s]" and special effects, with themes that focus on the "...basic instincts of aggression, revenge, violence and greed."

Q. In the context of this passage, what does the following statement mean: “mass media lessens people's capacity to experience life itself"

Popular culture (or pop culture) is the culture-patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activities significance and importance - which are popular, well-liked or common. Popular culture is deemed as what is popular within the social context - that of which is most strongly represented by what is perceived to be popularly accepted among society. Otherwise, popular culture is also suggested to be the widespread cultural elements in any given society that are perpetuated through that society's vernacular language. It can include any number of practices, including those pertaining to cooking, clothing, consumption, mass media and the many facets of entertainment such as sports and literature. 

Fifteenth century law and politics used the word ‘popular’ to indicate something crude, but in the late eighteenth century ‘popular’ ceased to be a favourite cussing word and started to denote what is prevalent in society.

Pop culture finds its expression in the mass circulation of items from areas such as fashion, music, design, sport and film. The world of pop culture has had a particular influence on art from the 1950s on through Pop Art, first in Britain and later in the United States. Popular culture comes under heavy criticism from various sources (most notably religious groups) which deem it superficial, consumerist, sensationalist and corrupted. The meaning of popular and the meaning of culture are essentially contested concepts and there are multiple competing definitions of popular culture. John Storey, in Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, discusses six definitions. 

The quantitative definition, of culture has the problem that much “high” culture (e.g. television dramatisations of Jane Austen) is widely favoured. “Pop culture” can also be defined as the culture that is “left over” when we have decided what “high culture” is. However, many works straddle or cross the boundaries e.g. William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Puccini-Verdi-Pavarotti- Nessun Dorma. Storey draws attention to the forces and relations which sustain this difference such as the educational system. A third definition equates pop culture with mass culture. This is seen as a commercial culture, mass produced for mass consumption. From a U.K. (and European) point of view, this may be equated to American culture. 

Alternatively, “pop culture” can be defined as an “authentic” culture of the people, but this can be problematic because there are many ways of defining the “ people” . Storey argues that there is a political dimension to popular culture; neo-Gramscian hegemony theory “ ... sees popular culture as a site of struggle between the ‘resistance’ of subordinate groups in society and the forces of ‘incorporation’ operating in the interests of dominant groups in society” . A postmodernism approach to popular culture would “no longer recognise the distinction between high and popular culture”.
Popular culture changes constantly and occurs uniquely in place and time. It forms currents and eddies, and represents a complex of mutually-interdependent perspectives and values that influence society and its institutions in various ways. For example, certain currents of pop culture may originate from, (or diverge into) a subculture, representing perspectives with which the mainstream popular culture has only limited familiarity. Items of popular culture most typically appeal to a broad spectrum of the public.
The news media mines the work of scientists and scholars and conveys it to the general public, often emphasizing “factoids” that have inherent appeal or the power to amaze. For instance, giant pandas (a species in remote Chinese woodlands) have become well-known items of popular culture; parasitic worms, though of greater practical importance, have not. Both scholarly facts and news stories get modified through popular transmission, often to the point of outright falsehoods. 

Hannah Arendt’s 1961 essay The Crisis in Culture suggested that a “market-driven media would lead to the displacement of culture by the dictates of entertainment” . Susan Sontag argues that in our culture, the most “...intelligible, persuasive values are [increasingly] drawn from the entertainment industries” , which is “ undermining of standards of seriousness” . As a result, “ tepid, the glib, and the senselessly cruel” topics are becoming the norm. Some critics argue that popular culture is “dumbing down”: “...newspapers that once ran foreign news now feature celebrity gossip, pictures of scantily dressed young ladies...television has replaced high-quality drama with gardening, cookery, and other “lifestyle” programmes... [and] reality TV and asinine soaps, “ to the point that people are constantly immersed in trivia about celebrity culture” . 

In Rosenberg and White’s book Mass Culture, MacDonald argues that “Popular culture is a debased, trivial culture that voids both the deep realities (sex, death, failure, tragedy) and also the simple spontaneous pleasures... The masses, debauched by several generations of this sort of thing, in turn come to demand trivial and comfortable cultural products.” Van den Haag argues that “ ...all mass media in the end alienate people from personal experience and though appearing to offset it, intensify their moral isolation from each other, from reality and from themselves." He argues that mass media then lessens “...people's capacity to experience life itself.”

Critics have lamented the replacement of high art and authentic folk culture by tasteless industrialised artefacts produced on a mass scale in order to satisfy the lowest common denominator." This "mass culture emerged after the Second World War and have led to the concentration of mass-culture power in ever larger global media conglomerates." The popular press decreased the amount of news or information and replaced it with entertainment or filiation that reinforces"... fears, prejudice, scapegoating processes, paranoia, and aggression." 

Critics of television and film have argued that the quality of TV output has been diluted as stations relentlessly pursue "populism and ratings" by focusing on the "glitzy, the superficial, and the popular." In film, "Hollywood culture and values" are increasingly dominating film production in other countries. Hollywood films have changed from focusing on scriptwriting and dialogue to creating formulaic films which emphasize "...shock-value and superficial thrill[s]" and special effects, with themes that focus on the "...basic instincts of aggression, revenge, violence and greed."

Q. Each of the following statements is either (i) STATED (ii) IMPLIED or (iii) NEITHER STATED NOR IMPLIED in the passage. Study each statement and choose the correct combination from the given options.

1) When modern pop culture began during the early 1950s, it made it harder for adults to participate

2) Popular culture and the mass media have a symbiotic relationship: each depends on the other in an intimate collaboration

3) Popular culture often contrasts with a more exclusive, even elitist “high culture”.

Answer the following question based on the information given below.

And he left all that he had in Joseph's hand, and took cognizance of nothing with him, save the bread that he ate. And Joseph was of a beautiful form and of a beautiful countenance.

Which of the following best replaces the word ‘countenance’ in this sentence?

The paragraph below consists of a certain number of sentences. Some parts of these sentences are underlined. You need to choose the option that identifies the parts that are grammatically incorrect.

Instead of asking if blood kinship explains everything or nothing about altruism, (i) Hamilton approached the question differently. He began by defining three terms: the genetic relatedness between individuals (labeled r), (ii) the cost of an act of goodness (labeled c), and the (iii) benefit that a recipient obtained when someone was nice to him or her (labeled b).

Fill in the blanks with prepositions:

The committees set up________village levels were called ________ because they were often only ________ paper, or ran ________ the influence________ government officials.

From among the options, choose the summary of the passage that is written in the same style as that of the passage.

Many people from Marwari vaishya/baniya/business caste went to distant states for trading and became successful and famous. Since the vaishya/baniya caste is present everywhere in India, for people in other states, the distinguishing factor of a “Marwari baniya” person was “Marwari”. Hence, with human tendency to speak short, the term “Marwari” caught on across India's other states to refer to a businessman from Marwar. This usage is imprecise. Other castes from Rajasthan did not migrate to such extent, so awareness about them in other states is low.

A passage is followed by questions pertaining to the passage. Read the passage and answer the questions. Choose the most appropriate answer.

Electric vehicles are more resilient to price pressures, and hence will appeal to people. These cars are unaffected by international price fluctuations, unlike oil-fuelled cars. Electric cars also achieve 90% energy conversion efficiency, which saves energy and money. Electric car maintenance costs have also fallen. Therefore, electric cars will take over the Indian market.

Q. Which of the following statements will weaken the author’s argument?

Arrange the jumbled sentences in order.

A. Ordinary because most ex-offenders do, eventually, manage to overcome the substantial hurdles they face and “go straight”; after all, crime is a young person’s game.
B. Extraordinary because more than half of all released prisoners are returned to prison for new crimes or parole violations within three years of their release.
C. Research on the life paths of prisoners over long stretches of time suggests that around 85 percent of them grow out of criminal behavior by the time they turn 28.
D. Deutsch’s story is both extraordinary and highly ordinary.

Group Question

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

James Lovelock defined Gaia as, “a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet”. 

The theory was initially, according to Lovelock, a way to explain the fact that combinations of chemicals including oxygen and methane persist in stable concentrations in the atmosphere of the Earth. Lovelock suggested using such combinations detected in other planets' atmospheres would be a relatively reliable and cheap way to detect life, which many biologists opposed at the time and since. Later other relationships such as the fact that sea creatures produce sulfur and iodine in approximately the quantities required by land creatures emerged and helped bolster the theory. Rather than invent many different theories to describe each such equilibrium, Lovelock dealt with them holistically, naming this selfregulating living system after the Greek goddess Gaia. The Gaia Hypothesis has since been supported by a number of scientific experiments and provided a number of useful predictions, and hence is properly referred to as the Gaia Theory. 

His initial hypothesis was that the biomass modifies the conditions on the planet to make conditions on the planet more hospitable - the Gaia Hypothesis properly defined this "hospitality" as a full homeostasis. Lovelock's initial hypothesis, accused of being teleological by his critics, was that the atmosphere is kept in homeostasis by and for the biosphere. With his initial hypothesis, Lovelock claimed the existence of a global control system of surface temperature, atmosphere composition and ocean salinity. His arguments were -- the global surface temperature of the Earth has remained constant, despite an increase in the energy provided by the Sun; atmospheric composition remains constant, even though it should be unstable; and, ocean salinity is constant. 

Since life started on Earth, the energy provided by the Sun has increased by 25% to 30%; however the surface temperature of the planet has remained remarkably constant when measured on a global scale. Furthermore, he argued, the atmospheric composition of the Earth is constant. The Earth's atmosphere currently consists of 79% nitrogen, 20.7% oxygen and 0.03% carbon dioxide. Oxygen is the second most reactive element after fluorine, and should combine with gases and minerals of the Earth's atmosphere and crust. Traces of methane should not exist, as methane is combustible in an oxygen atmosphere. This composition should be unstable, and its stability can only have been maintained with removal or production by living organisms. Ocean salinity has been constant at about 3.4% for a very long time. Salinity stability is important as most cells require a rather constant salinity and do not generally tolerate values above 5%. Ocean salinity constancy was a long-standing mystery, because river salts should have raised the ocean salinity much higher than observed. Recently it was suggested that salinity may also be strongly influenced by seawater circulation through hot basaltic rocks, and emerging as hot water vents on ocean spreading ridges. However, the composition of sea water is far from equilibrium, and it is difficult to explain this fact without the influence of organic processes. 

Lovelock sees this as one of the complex processes that maintain conditions suitable for life. The volcanoes produce CO₂ in the atmosphere, CO₂ participates in rock weathering as carbonic acid, itself accelerated by temperature and soil life, the dissolved CO₂ is then used by the algae and released on the ocean floor. CO₂ excess can be compensated by an increase of coccolithophoride life, increasing the amount of CO₂ locked in the ocean floor. Coccolithophorides increase the cloud cover, hence control the surface temperature, help cool the whole planet and favor precipitations which are necessary for terrestrial plants. For Lovelock and other Gaia scientists like Stephan Harding, coccolithophorides are one stage in a regulatory feedback loop. Lately the atmospheric CO₂ concentration has increased and there is some evidence that concentrations of ocean algal blooms are also increasing. After initially being largely ignored by most scientists, (from 1969 until 1977), thereafter for a period, the initial Gaia hypothesis was ridiculed by a number of scientists, like Ford Doolittle, Dawkins and Gould. Lovelock has spoken how that by naming his theory after a Greek goddess, championed by many non scientists, the Gaia hypothesis was derided as some kind of neo-Pagan New Age religion. Lovelock seems to have accepted this criticism of some of his statements, and has worked hard to remove the taint of teleological purpose from his theories, stating "Nowhere in our writings do we express the idea that planetary self-regulation is purposeful, or involves foresight or planning by the biota." - (Lovelock, J. E. 1990).

In 1981, W. Ford Doolittle, in the CoEvolution Quarterly article "Is Nature Motherly" argued that there was nothing in the genome of individual organisms which could provide the feedback mechanisms Gaia theory proposed, and that therefore the Gaia hypothesis was an unscientific theory of a maternal type without any explanatory mechanism. In 1982 Richard Dawkins in his book The Extended Phenotype argued that organisms could not act in concert as this would require foresight and planning from them. Like Doolittle he rejected the possibility that feedback loops could stabilize the system. Dawkins claimed "there was no way for evolution by natural selection to lead to altruism on a Global scale".

Stephen Jay Gould criticised Gaia as merely a metaphorical description of Earth processes. He wanted to know the actual mechanisms by which self-regulating homeostasis was regulated. Lovelock scoffs at this criticism and argues that no one mechanism is responsible, that the connections between the various known mechanisms may never be known, that this is accepted in other fields of biology and ecology as a matter of course. Aside from clarifying his language and understanding of what is meant by a life form, Lovelock himself ascribes most of the criticism to a lack of understanding of non-linear mathematics by his critics, and a linearizing form of greedy reductionism in which all events have to be immediately ascribed to specific causes before the fact. One of the criteria of the empirical definition of life is its ability to replicate and pass on their genetic information to succeeding generations. Consequently, an argument against the idea that Gaia is a "living" organism is the fact that the planet is unable to reproduce. Lovelock, however, defines life as a self-preserving, self-similar system of feedback loops like Humberto Maturana's autopoiesis; as a self-similar system, life could be a cell as well as an organ embedded into a larger organism as well as an individual in a larger inter-dependent social context.
Maturana and Lovelock changed this with the autopoiesis deductive definition which to them explains the phenomenon of life better. Reproduction becomes optional: bee swarms reproduce, while the biosphere has no need to. Lovelock himself states in the original Gaia book that even that is not true; given the possibilities, the biosphere may multiply in the future by colonizing other planets, as humankind may be the primer by which Gaia will reproduce. Humanity's exploration of space, its interest in colonizing and even terraforming other planets, lends some plausibility to the idea that Gaia might in effect be able to reproduce.

Q. Which of the following statements is not a feature of the Gaia hypothesis?

James Lovelock defined Gaia as, “a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet”. 

The theory was initially, according to Lovelock, a way to explain the fact that combinations of chemicals including oxygen and methane persist in stable concentrations in the atmosphere of the Earth. Lovelock suggested using such combinations detected in other planets' atmospheres would be a relatively reliable and cheap way to detect life, which many biologists opposed at the time and since. Later other relationships such as the fact that sea creatures produce sulfur and iodine in approximately the quantities required by land creatures emerged and helped bolster the theory. Rather than invent many different theories to describe each such equilibrium, Lovelock dealt with them holistically, naming this selfregulating living system after the Greek goddess Gaia. The Gaia Hypothesis has since been supported by a number of scientific experiments and provided a number of useful predictions, and hence is properly referred to as the Gaia Theory. 

His initial hypothesis was that the biomass modifies the conditions on the planet to make conditions on the planet more hospitable - the Gaia Hypothesis properly defined this "hospitality" as a full homeostasis. Lovelock's initial hypothesis, accused of being teleological by his critics, was that the atmosphere is kept in homeostasis by and for the biosphere. With his initial hypothesis, Lovelock claimed the existence of a global control system of surface temperature, atmosphere composition and ocean salinity. His arguments were -- the global surface temperature of the Earth has remained constant, despite an increase in the energy provided by the Sun; atmospheric composition remains constant, even though it should be unstable; and, ocean salinity is constant. 

Since life started on Earth, the energy provided by the Sun has increased by 25% to 30%; however the surface temperature of the planet has remained remarkably constant when measured on a global scale. Furthermore, he argued, the atmospheric composition of the Earth is constant. The Earth's atmosphere currently consists of 79% nitrogen, 20.7% oxygen and 0.03% carbon dioxide. Oxygen is the second most reactive element after fluorine, and should combine with gases and minerals of the Earth's atmosphere and crust. Traces of methane should not exist, as methane is combustible in an oxygen atmosphere. This composition should be unstable, and its stability can only have been maintained with removal or production by living organisms. Ocean salinity has been constant at about 3.4% for a very long time. Salinity stability is important as most cells require a rather constant salinity and do not generally tolerate values above 5%. Ocean salinity constancy was a long-standing mystery, because river salts should have raised the ocean salinity much higher than observed. Recently it was suggested that salinity may also be strongly influenced by seawater circulation through hot basaltic rocks, and emerging as hot water vents on ocean spreading ridges. However, the composition of sea water is far from equilibrium, and it is difficult to explain this fact without the influence of organic processes. 

Lovelock sees this as one of the complex processes that maintain conditions suitable for life. The volcanoes produce CO₂ in the atmosphere, CO₂ participates in rock weathering as carbonic acid, itself accelerated by temperature and soil life, the dissolved CO₂ is then used by the algae and released on the ocean floor. CO₂ excess can be compensated by an increase of coccolithophoride life, increasing the amount of CO₂ locked in the ocean floor. Coccolithophorides increase the cloud cover, hence control the surface temperature, help cool the whole planet and favor precipitations which are necessary for terrestrial plants. For Lovelock and other Gaia scientists like Stephan Harding, coccolithophorides are one stage in a regulatory feedback loop. Lately the atmospheric CO₂ concentration has increased and there is some evidence that concentrations of ocean algal blooms are also increasing. After initially being largely ignored by most scientists, (from 1969 until 1977), thereafter for a period, the initial Gaia hypothesis was ridiculed by a number of scientists, like Ford Doolittle, Dawkins and Gould. Lovelock has spoken how that by naming his theory after a Greek goddess, championed by many non scientists, the Gaia hypothesis was derided as some kind of neo-Pagan New Age religion. Lovelock seems to have accepted this criticism of some of his statements, and has worked hard to remove the taint of teleological purpose from his theories, stating "Nowhere in our writings do we express the idea that planetary self-regulation is purposeful, or involves foresight or planning by the biota." - (Lovelock, J. E. 1990).

In 1981, W. Ford Doolittle, in the CoEvolution Quarterly article "Is Nature Motherly" argued that there was nothing in the genome of individual organisms which could provide the feedback mechanisms Gaia theory proposed, and that therefore the Gaia hypothesis was an unscientific theory of a maternal type without any explanatory mechanism. In 1982 Richard Dawkins in his book The Extended Phenotype argued that organisms could not act in concert as this would require foresight and planning from them. Like Doolittle he rejected the possibility that feedback loops could stabilize the system. Dawkins claimed "there was no way for evolution by natural selection to lead to altruism on a Global scale".

Stephen Jay Gould criticised Gaia as merely a metaphorical description of Earth processes. He wanted to know the actual mechanisms by which self-regulating homeostasis was regulated. Lovelock scoffs at this criticism and argues that no one mechanism is responsible, that the connections between the various known mechanisms may never be known, that this is accepted in other fields of biology and ecology as a matter of course. Aside from clarifying his language and understanding of what is meant by a life form, Lovelock himself ascribes most of the criticism to a lack of understanding of non-linear mathematics by his critics, and a linearizing form of greedy reductionism in which all events have to be immediately ascribed to specific causes before the fact. One of the criteria of the empirical definition of life is its ability to replicate and pass on their genetic information to succeeding generations. Consequently, an argument against the idea that Gaia is a "living" organism is the fact that the planet is unable to reproduce. Lovelock, however, defines life as a self-preserving, self-similar system of feedback loops like Humberto Maturana's autopoiesis; as a self-similar system, life could be a cell as well as an organ embedded into a larger organism as well as an individual in a larger inter-dependent social context.
Maturana and Lovelock changed this with the autopoiesis deductive definition which to them explains the phenomenon of life better. Reproduction becomes optional: bee swarms reproduce, while the biosphere has no need to. Lovelock himself states in the original Gaia book that even that is not true; given the possibilities, the biosphere may multiply in the future by colonizing other planets, as humankind may be the primer by which Gaia will reproduce. Humanity's exploration of space, its interest in colonizing and even terraforming other planets, lends some plausibility to the idea that Gaia might in effect be able to reproduce.

Q. In the context of this passage, the word "teleological" most nearly means:

James Lovelock defined Gaia as, “a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet”. 

The theory was initially, according to Lovelock, a way to explain the fact that combinations of chemicals including oxygen and methane persist in stable concentrations in the atmosphere of the Earth. Lovelock suggested using such combinations detected in other planets' atmospheres would be a relatively reliable and cheap way to detect life, which many biologists opposed at the time and since. Later other relationships such as the fact that sea creatures produce sulfur and iodine in approximately the quantities required by land creatures emerged and helped bolster the theory. Rather than invent many different theories to describe each such equilibrium, Lovelock dealt with them holistically, naming this selfregulating living system after the Greek goddess Gaia. The Gaia Hypothesis has since been supported by a number of scientific experiments and provided a number of useful predictions, and hence is properly referred to as the Gaia Theory. 

His initial hypothesis was that the biomass modifies the conditions on the planet to make conditions on the planet more hospitable - the Gaia Hypothesis properly defined this "hospitality" as a full homeostasis. Lovelock's initial hypothesis, accused of being teleological by his critics, was that the atmosphere is kept in homeostasis by and for the biosphere. With his initial hypothesis, Lovelock claimed the existence of a global control system of surface temperature, atmosphere composition and ocean salinity. His arguments were -- the global surface temperature of the Earth has remained constant, despite an increase in the energy provided by the Sun; atmospheric composition remains constant, even though it should be unstable; and, ocean salinity is constant. 

Since life started on Earth, the energy provided by the Sun has increased by 25% to 30%; however the surface temperature of the planet has remained remarkably constant when measured on a global scale. Furthermore, he argued, the atmospheric composition of the Earth is constant. The Earth's atmosphere currently consists of 79% nitrogen, 20.7% oxygen and 0.03% carbon dioxide. Oxygen is the second most reactive element after fluorine, and should combine with gases and minerals of the Earth's atmosphere and crust. Traces of methane should not exist, as methane is combustible in an oxygen atmosphere. This composition should be unstable, and its stability can only have been maintained with removal or production by living organisms. Ocean salinity has been constant at about 3.4% for a very long time. Salinity stability is important as most cells require a rather constant salinity and do not generally tolerate values above 5%. Ocean salinity constancy was a long-standing mystery, because river salts should have raised the ocean salinity much higher than observed. Recently it was suggested that salinity may also be strongly influenced by seawater circulation through hot basaltic rocks, and emerging as hot water vents on ocean spreading ridges. However, the composition of sea water is far from equilibrium, and it is difficult to explain this fact without the influence of organic processes. 

Lovelock sees this as one of the complex processes that maintain conditions suitable for life. The volcanoes produce CO₂ in the atmosphere, CO₂ participates in rock weathering as carbonic acid, itself accelerated by temperature and soil life, the dissolved CO₂ is then used by the algae and released on the ocean floor. CO₂ excess can be compensated by an increase of coccolithophoride life, increasing the amount of CO₂ locked in the ocean floor. Coccolithophorides increase the cloud cover, hence control the surface temperature, help cool the whole planet and favor precipitations which are necessary for terrestrial plants. For Lovelock and other Gaia scientists like Stephan Harding, coccolithophorides are one stage in a regulatory feedback loop. Lately the atmospheric CO₂ concentration has increased and there is some evidence that concentrations of ocean algal blooms are also increasing. After initially being largely ignored by most scientists, (from 1969 until 1977), thereafter for a period, the initial Gaia hypothesis was ridiculed by a number of scientists, like Ford Doolittle, Dawkins and Gould. Lovelock has spoken how that by naming his theory after a Greek goddess, championed by many non scientists, the Gaia hypothesis was derided as some kind of neo-Pagan New Age religion. Lovelock seems to have accepted this criticism of some of his statements, and has worked hard to remove the taint of teleological purpose from his theories, stating "Nowhere in our writings do we express the idea that planetary self-regulation is purposeful, or involves foresight or planning by the biota." - (Lovelock, J. E. 1990).

In 1981, W. Ford Doolittle, in the CoEvolution Quarterly article "Is Nature Motherly" argued that there was nothing in the genome of individual organisms which could provide the feedback mechanisms Gaia theory proposed, and that therefore the Gaia hypothesis was an unscientific theory of a maternal type without any explanatory mechanism. In 1982 Richard Dawkins in his book The Extended Phenotype argued that organisms could not act in concert as this would require foresight and planning from them. Like Doolittle he rejected the possibility that feedback loops could stabilize the system. Dawkins claimed "there was no way for evolution by natural selection to lead to altruism on a Global scale".

Stephen Jay Gould criticised Gaia as merely a metaphorical description of Earth processes. He wanted to know the actual mechanisms by which self-regulating homeostasis was regulated. Lovelock scoffs at this criticism and argues that no one mechanism is responsible, that the connections between the various known mechanisms may never be known, that this is accepted in other fields of biology and ecology as a matter of course. Aside from clarifying his language and understanding of what is meant by a life form, Lovelock himself ascribes most of the criticism to a lack of understanding of non-linear mathematics by his critics, and a linearizing form of greedy reductionism in which all events have to be immediately ascribed to specific causes before the fact. One of the criteria of the empirical definition of life is its ability to replicate and pass on their genetic information to succeeding generations. Consequently, an argument against the idea that Gaia is a "living" organism is the fact that the planet is unable to reproduce. Lovelock, however, defines life as a self-preserving, self-similar system of feedback loops like Humberto Maturana's autopoiesis; as a self-similar system, life could be a cell as well as an organ embedded into a larger organism as well as an individual in a larger inter-dependent social context.
Maturana and Lovelock changed this with the autopoiesis deductive definition which to them explains the phenomenon of life better. Reproduction becomes optional: bee swarms reproduce, while the biosphere has no need to. Lovelock himself states in the original Gaia book that even that is not true; given the possibilities, the biosphere may multiply in the future by colonizing other planets, as humankind may be the primer by which Gaia will reproduce. Humanity's exploration of space, its interest in colonizing and even terraforming other planets, lends some plausibility to the idea that Gaia might in effect be able to reproduce.

Q. Which of the following statements can be inferred from the passage?

James Lovelock defined Gaia as, “a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet”. 

The theory was initially, according to Lovelock, a way to explain the fact that combinations of chemicals including oxygen and methane persist in stable concentrations in the atmosphere of the Earth. Lovelock suggested using such combinations detected in other planets' atmospheres would be a relatively reliable and cheap way to detect life, which many biologists opposed at the time and since. Later other relationships such as the fact that sea creatures produce sulfur and iodine in approximately the quantities required by land creatures emerged and helped bolster the theory. Rather than invent many different theories to describe each such equilibrium, Lovelock dealt with them holistically, naming this selfregulating living system after the Greek goddess Gaia. The Gaia Hypothesis has since been supported by a number of scientific experiments and provided a number of useful predictions, and hence is properly referred to as the Gaia Theory. 

His initial hypothesis was that the biomass modifies the conditions on the planet to make conditions on the planet more hospitable - the Gaia Hypothesis properly defined this "hospitality" as a full homeostasis. Lovelock's initial hypothesis, accused of being teleological by his critics, was that the atmosphere is kept in homeostasis by and for the biosphere. With his initial hypothesis, Lovelock claimed the existence of a global control system of surface temperature, atmosphere composition and ocean salinity. His arguments were -- the global surface temperature of the Earth has remained constant, despite an increase in the energy provided by the Sun; atmospheric composition remains constant, even though it should be unstable; and, ocean salinity is constant. 

Since life started on Earth, the energy provided by the Sun has increased by 25% to 30%; however the surface temperature of the planet has remained remarkably constant when measured on a global scale. Furthermore, he argued, the atmospheric composition of the Earth is constant. The Earth's atmosphere currently consists of 79% nitrogen, 20.7% oxygen and 0.03% carbon dioxide. Oxygen is the second most reactive element after fluorine, and should combine with gases and minerals of the Earth's atmosphere and crust. Traces of methane should not exist, as methane is combustible in an oxygen atmosphere. This composition should be unstable, and its stability can only have been maintained with removal or production by living organisms. Ocean salinity has been constant at about 3.4% for a very long time. Salinity stability is important as most cells require a rather constant salinity and do not generally tolerate values above 5%. Ocean salinity constancy was a long-standing mystery, because river salts should have raised the ocean salinity much higher than observed. Recently it was suggested that salinity may also be strongly influenced by seawater circulation through hot basaltic rocks, and emerging as hot water vents on ocean spreading ridges. However, the composition of sea water is far from equilibrium, and it is difficult to explain this fact without the influence of organic processes. 

Lovelock sees this as one of the complex processes that maintain conditions suitable for life. The volcanoes produce CO₂ in the atmosphere, CO₂ participates in rock weathering as carbonic acid, itself accelerated by temperature and soil life, the dissolved CO₂ is then used by the algae and released on the ocean floor. CO₂ excess can be compensated by an increase of coccolithophoride life, increasing the amount of CO₂ locked in the ocean floor. Coccolithophorides increase the cloud cover, hence control the surface temperature, help cool the whole planet and favor precipitations which are necessary for terrestrial plants. For Lovelock and other Gaia scientists like Stephan Harding, coccolithophorides are one stage in a regulatory feedback loop. Lately the atmospheric CO₂ concentration has increased and there is some evidence that concentrations of ocean algal blooms are also increasing. After initially being largely ignored by most scientists, (from 1969 until 1977), thereafter for a period, the initial Gaia hypothesis was ridiculed by a number of scientists, like Ford Doolittle, Dawkins and Gould. Lovelock has spoken how that by naming his theory after a Greek goddess, championed by many non scientists, the Gaia hypothesis was derided as some kind of neo-Pagan New Age religion. Lovelock seems to have accepted this criticism of some of his statements, and has worked hard to remove the taint of teleological purpose from his theories, stating "Nowhere in our writings do we express the idea that planetary self-regulation is purposeful, or involves foresight or planning by the biota." - (Lovelock, J. E. 1990).

In 1981, W. Ford Doolittle, in the Co Evolution Quarterly article "Is Nature Motherly" argued that there was nothing in the genome of individual organisms which could provide the feedback mechanisms Gaia theory proposed, and that therefore the Gaia hypothesis was an unscientific theory of a maternal type without any explanatory mechanism. In 1982 Richard Dawkins in his book The Extended Phenotype argued that organisms could not act in concert as this would require foresight and planning from them. Like Doolittle he rejected the possibility that feedback loops could stabilize the system. Dawkins claimed "there was no way for evolution by natural selection to lead to altruism on a Global scale".

Stephen Jay Gould criticised Gaia as merely a metaphorical description of Earth processes. He wanted to know the actual mechanisms by which self-regulating homeostasis was regulated. Lovelock scoffs at this criticism and argues that no one mechanism is responsible, that the connections between the various known mechanisms may never be known, that this is accepted in other fields of biology and ecology as a matter of course. Aside from clarifying his language and understanding of what is meant by a life form, Lovelock himself ascribes most of the criticism to a lack of understanding of non-linear mathematics by his critics, and a linearizing form of greedy reductionism in which all events have to be immediately ascribed to specific causes before the fact. One of the criteria of the empirical definition of life is its ability to replicate and pass on their genetic information to succeeding generations. Consequently, an argument against the idea that Gaia is a "living" organism is the fact that the planet is unable to reproduce. Lovelock, however, defines life as a self-preserving, self-similar system of feedback loops like Humberto Maturana's autopoiesis; as a self-similar system, life could be a cell as well as an organ embedded into a larger organism as well as an individual in a larger inter-dependent social context.
Maturana and Lovelock changed this with the autopoiesis deductive definition which to them explains the phenomenon of life better. Reproduction becomes optional: bee swarms reproduce, while the biosphere has no need to. Lovelock himself states in the original Gaia book that even that is not true; given the possibilities, the biosphere may multiply in the future by colonizing other planets, as humankind may be the primer by which Gaia will reproduce. Humanity's exploration of space, its interest in colonizing and even terraforming other planets, lends some plausibility to the idea that Gaia might in effect be able to reproduce.

Q. Each of the following statements is either (i) STATED (ii) IMPLIED or (iii) NEITHER STATED NOR IMPLIED in the passage. Study each statement and choose the correct combination from the given options.

a) From a cosmic viewpoint, the space probes since 1959 have the character of a planet preparing to go to seed b) Some self-regulating phenomena may not be explainable at all mathematically c) Creatures that evolve that improve their environment for their survival will do better than those which damage their environment.

Fill in the blanks with the most appropriate word/set of words from gjven options.

__________ a century to day__________ women have had an annual day dedicated__________them, though the 364 days left__________the other sex indicates which way the balance still tilts.

The following question has a paragraph from which the last sentence has been deleted. From the given options, choose the one that completes the paragraph in the most appropriate way.

By now the “chaos revolution” has reached nearly every branch of the natural sciences. In fact, chaos is everywhere. To name but a few examples, we talk about chaotic weather patterns, chaotic chemical reactions and the chaotic evolution of insect populations. Atomic and molecular physics are no exceptions. At first glance this is surprising since atoms and molecules are well described by the linear laws of quantum mechanics, while an essential ingredient of chaos is nonlinearity in the dynamic equations. Thus,__________________________________.

Which of the following options is most likely to follow the paragraph given above?

Read the sentences and choose the option that best arranges them jn a logical order.

A. We do not yet have a definitive answer to this question, but we now have a candidate for the ultimate theory of everything, if indeed one exists, called M-theory.
B. It is natural to ask: Will this sequence eventually reach an end point, an ultimate theory of the universe, that will include all forces and predict every observation we can make, or will we continue forever finding better theories, but never one that cannot be improved upon?
C. M-theory is the only model that has all the properties we think the final theory ought to have, and it is the theory upon which much of our later discussion is based.
D. In the history of science we have discovered a sequence of better and better theories or models, from Plato to the classical theory of Newton to modem quantum theories.

Group Question

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

Reader-response theory recognises the reader as an active agent who imparts "real existence" to the work and completes its meaning through interpretation. Reader-response criticism argues that literature should be viewed as a performing art in which each reader creates his or her own, possibly unique, text-related performance. It stands in total opposition to the theories of formalism and the New Criticism, in which the reader's role in re-creating literary works is ignored. New Criticism had emphasised that only that which is within a text is part of the meaning of a text. No appeal to the authority or intention of the author, nor to the psychology of the reader, was allowed in the discussions of orthodox New Critics. The New Critics' position assumed an objective, fixed text that could be studied apart from any human being, and this assumption persisted even into postmodern criticism.
David Bleich had begun in the 1960s collecting statements by influencing students of their feelings and associations. He used these to theorize about the reading process and to refocus the classroom teaching of literature. He claimed that his classes "generated" knowledge, that is, knowledge of how particular persons recreate texts.

Michael Steig and Walter Slatoff have, like Bleich, shown that every students' highly personal responses can provide the basis for critical analyses in the classroom. Jeffrey Berman has encouraged students responding to texts to write anonymously and share with their classmates writings in response to literary works about sensitive subjects like drugs, suicidal thoughts, death in the family, parental abuse and the like. A kind of catharsis bordering on therapy results. In general, American reader-response critics have focused on individual readers' responses. American journals like Reader, Reading Research Quarterly, and others publish articles applying reader-response theory to the teaching of literature. 

In 1967, Stanley Fish published Surprised by Sin, the first study of a large literary work (Paradise Lost) that focused on its readers' experience. Since 1976, however, he has turned to real differences among real readers. He explores the reading tactics endorsed by different critical schools, by the literary professoriate, and by the legal profession, introducing the idea of "interpretive communities" that share particular modes of reading. In 1968, Norman Holland drew on psychoanalytic psychology in The Dynamics of Literary Response to model the literary work. He explored Freud’s idea about introjection, involving the incorporation of attributes, attitudes or qualities of an absent idea or person of high significance, such as an absent parent or a recently deceased relative, into oneself. According to Holland’s findings, each reader introjects a fantasy in the text, then modifies it with this and other defense mechanisms into an interpretation. In 1973, however, having recorded responses from real readers, Holland found variations too great to fit this model in which responses are mostly alike but show minor individual variations.
Holland then developed a second model based on his case studies 5 Readers Reading. An individual has (in the brain) a core identity theme. This core gives that individual a certain style of being--and reading. Each reader uses the physical literary work plus invariable codes (such as the shapes of letters) plus variable canons (different "interpretive communities", for example) plus an individual style of reading to build a response both like and unlike other readers' responses. 

Reuven Tsur in Israel has developed, in great detail, experimental models for the expressivity of poetic rhythms, of metaphor, and of word-sound in poetry. Richard Gerrig in the U.S. has experimented with the reader's state of mind during and after a literary experience. He has shown how readers put aside ordinary knowledge and values while they read, treating, for example, criminals as heroes. His controlled studies have also investigated how readers accept, while reading, improbable or fantastic things (Coleridge's "willing suspension of disbelief'), but discard them after they have finished.
Two notable researchers are Dolf Zillmann and Peter Vorderer, both working in the field of communications and media psychology. Both have theorized and tested ideas about what produces emotions such as suspense, curiosity, surprise in readers, the necessary factors involved, and the role the reader plays. Jenefer Robinson, a researcher in emotion, has recently blended her studies on emotion with its role in literature, music, and art. 

Wolfgang Iser exemplifies the German tendency to theorize the reader and so posit a uniform response. For him, a literary work is not an object in itself but an effect to be explained. But he asserts this response is controlled by the text. For the "real" reader, he substitutes an implied reader, who is the reader a given literary work requires. In his model, the text controls. The reader's activities are confined within limits set by the literary work. Iser describes the process of first reading, the subsequent development of the text into a 'whole', and how the dialogue between the reader and text takes place. 

Another important German reader-response critic was Hans-Robert Jauss, who defined literature as a dialectic process of production and reception. For Jauss, readers have a certain mental set, a "horizon" of expectations (Erwartungshorizont), from which perspective each reader, at any given time in history, reads. Reader-response criticism establishes these horizons of expectation by reading literary works of the period in question.
Reader-response critics hold that, to understand the literary experience or the meaning of a text, one must look to the processes readers use to create that meaning and experience. Traditional, text-oriented critics often think of reader-response criticism as an anarchic subjectivism, allowing readers to interpret a text any way they want. They accuse reader-response critics of saying the text doesn't exist. By contrast, text-oriented critics assume that one can understand a text while remaining immune to one's own culture, status, personality, and so on, and hence "objectively". To reader-response critics, however, reading is always both subjective and objective, and their question is not "which" but "how". Some reader-response critics (uniformists) assume a bi-active model of reading: the literary work controls part of the response and the reader controls part. Others, who see that position as internally contradictory, claim that the reader controls the whole transaction (individualists). In such a reader-active model, readers and audiences use amateur or professional procedures for reading (shared by many others) as well as their personal issues and values.
Another objection to reader-response criticism is that it fails to account for the text being able to expand the reader's understanding. While readers can and do put their own ideas and experiences into a work, they are at the same time gaining new understanding through the text. This is something that is generally overlooked in reader-response criticism. 

Reader-response criticism relates to psychology, both experimental psychology for those attempting to find principles of response, and psychoanalytic psychology for those studying individual responses. Post-behaviorist psychologists of reading and of perception support the idea that it is the reader who makes meaning. Increasingly, cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics, neuroscience, and neuropsychoanalysis have given reader-response critics powerful and detailed models for the aesthetic process. 

Q. Based on information given in the passage, which of the  following statements is not a valid criticism of the Reader- Response theory?

Reader-response theory recognises the reader as an active agent who imparts "real existence" to the work and completes its meaning through interpretation. Reader-response criticism argues that literature should be viewed as a performing art in which each reader creates his or her own, possibly unique, text-related performance. It stands in total opposition to the theories of formalism and the New Criticism, in which the reader's role in re-creating literary works is ignored. New Criticism had emphasised that only that which is within a text is part of the meaning of a text. No appeal to the authority or intention of the author, nor to the psychology of the reader, was allowed in the discussions of orthodox New Critics. The New Critics' position assumed an objective, fixed text that could be studied apart from any human being, and this assumption persisted even into postmodern criticism.
David Bleich had begun in the 1960s collecting statements by influencing students of their feelings and associations. He used these to theorize about the reading process and to refocus the classroom teaching of literature. He claimed that his classes "generated" knowledge, that is, knowledge of how particular persons recreate texts.

Michael Steig and Walter Slatoff have, like Bleich, shown that every students' highly personal responses can provide the basis for critical analyses in the classroom. Jeffrey Berman has encouraged students responding to texts to write anonymously and share with their classmates writings in response to literary works about sensitive subjects like drugs, suicidal thoughts, death in the family, parental abuse and the like. A kind of catharsis bordering on therapy results. In general, American reader-response critics have focused on individual readers' responses. American journals like Reader, Reading Research Quarterly, and others publish articles applying reader-response theory to the teaching of literature. 

In 1967, Stanley Fish published Surprised by Sin, the first study of a large literary work (Paradise Lost) that focused on its readers' experience. Since 1976, however, he has turned to real differences among real readers. He explores the reading tactics endorsed by different critical schools, by the literary professoriate, and by the legal profession, introducing the idea of "interpretive communities" that share particular modes of reading. In 1968, Norman Holland drew on psychoanalytic psychology in The Dynamics of Literary Response to model the literary work. He explored Freud’s idea about introjection, involving the incorporation of attributes, attitudes or qualities of an absent idea or person of high significance, such as an absent parent or a recently deceased relative, into oneself. According to Holland’s findings, each reader introjects a fantasy in the text, then modifies it with this and other defense mechanisms into an interpretation. In 1973, however, having recorded responses from real readers, Holland found variations too great to fit this model in which responses are mostly alike but show minor individual variations.
Holland then developed a second model based on his case studies 5 Readers Reading. An individual has (in the brain) a core identity theme. This core gives that individual a certain style of being--and reading. Each reader uses the physical literary work plus invariable codes (such as the shapes of letters) plus variable canons (different "interpretive communities", for example) plus an individual style of reading to build a response both like and unlike other readers' responses. 

Reuven Tsur in Israel has developed, in great detail, experimental models for the expressivity of poetic rhythms, of metaphor, and of word-sound in poetry. Richard Gerrig in the U.S. has experimented with the reader's state of mind during and after a literary experience. He has shown how readers put aside ordinary knowledge and values while they read, treating, for example, criminals as heroes. His controlled studies have also investigated how readers accept, while reading, improbable or fantastic things (Coleridge's "willing suspension of disbelief'), but discard them after they have finished.
Two notable researchers are Dolf Zillmann and Peter Vorderer, both working in the field of communications and media psychology. Both have theorized and tested ideas about what produces emotions such as suspense, curiosity, surprise in readers, the necessary factors involved, and the role the reader plays. Jenefer Robinson, a researcher in emotion, has recently blended her studies on emotion with its role in literature, music, and art. 

Wolfgang Iser exemplifies the German tendency to theorize the reader and so posit a uniform response. For him, a literary work is not an object in itself but an effect to be explained. But he asserts this response is controlled by the text. For the "real" reader, he substitutes an implied reader, who is the reader a given literary work requires. In his model, the text controls. The reader's activities are confined within limits set by the literary work. Iser describes the process of first reading, the subsequent development of the text into a 'whole', and how the dialogue between the reader and text takes place. 

Another important German reader-response critic was Hans-Robert Jauss, who defined literature as a dialectic process of production and reception. For Jauss, readers have a certain mental set, a "horizon" of expectations (Erwartungshorizont), from which perspective each reader, at any given time in history, reads. Reader-response criticism establishes these horizons of expectation by reading literary works of the period in question.
Reader-response critics hold that, to understand the literary experience or the meaning of a text, one must look to the processes readers use to create that meaning and experience. Traditional, text-oriented critics often think of reader-response criticism as an anarchic subjectivism, allowing readers to interpret a text any way they want. They accuse reader-response critics of saying the text doesn't exist. By contrast, text-oriented critics assume that one can understand a text while remaining immune to one's own culture, status, personality, and so on, and hence "objectively". To reader-response critics, however, reading is always both subjective and objective, and their question is not "which" but "how". Some reader-response critics (uniformists) assume a bi-active model of reading: the literary work controls part of the response and the reader controls part. Others, who see that position as internally contradictory, claim that the reader controls the whole transaction (individualists). In such a reader-active model, readers and audiences use amateur or professional procedures for reading (shared by many others) as well as their personal issues and values.
Another objection to reader-response criticism is that it fails to account for the text being able to expand the reader's understanding. While readers can and do put their own ideas and experiences into a work, they are at the same time gaining new understanding through the text. This is something that is generally overlooked in reader-response criticism. 

Reader-response criticism relates to psychology, both experimental psychology for those attempting to find principles of response, and psychoanalytic psychology for those studying individual responses. Post-behaviorist psychologists of reading and of perception support the idea that it is the reader who makes meaning. Increasingly, cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics, neuroscience, and neuropsychoanalysis have given reader-response critics powerful and detailed models for the aesthetic process. 

Q. Based on information in the passage, which of the following  statements cannot be inferred?

Reader-response theory recognises the reader as an active agent who imparts "real existence" to the work and completes its meaning through interpretation. Reader-response criticism argues that literature should be viewed as a performing art in which each reader creates his or her own, possibly unique, text-related performance. It stands in total opposition to the theories of formalism and the New Criticism, in which the reader's role in re-creating literary works is ignored. New Criticism had emphasised that only that which is within a text is part of the meaning of a text. No appeal to the authority or intention of the author, nor to the psychology of the reader, was allowed in the discussions of orthodox New Critics. The New Critics' position assumed an objective, fixed text that could be studied apart from any human being, and this assumption persisted even into postmodern criticism.
David Bleich had begun in the 1960s collecting statements by influencing students of their feelings and associations. He used these to theorize about the reading process and to refocus the classroom teaching of literature. He claimed that his classes "generated" knowledge, that is, knowledge of how particular persons recreate texts.

Michael Steig and Walter Slatoff have, like Bleich, shown that every students' highly personal responses can provide the basis for critical analyses in the classroom. Jeffrey Berman has encouraged students responding to texts to write anonymously and share with their classmates writings in response to literary works about sensitive subjects like drugs, suicidal thoughts, death in the family, parental abuse and the like. A kind of catharsis bordering on therapy results. In general, American reader-response critics have focused on individual readers' responses. American journals like Reader, Reading Research Quarterly, and others publish articles applying reader-response theory to the teaching of literature. 

In 1967, Stanley Fish published Surprised by Sin, the first study of a large literary work (Paradise Lost) that focused on its readers' experience. Since 1976, however, he has turned to real differences among real readers. He explores the reading tactics endorsed by different critical schools, by the literary professoriate, and by the legal profession, introducing the idea of "interpretive communities" that share particular modes of reading. In 1968, Norman Holland drew on psychoanalytic psychology in The Dynamics of Literary Response to model the literary work. He explored Freud’s idea about introjection, involving the incorporation of attributes, attitudes or qualities of an absent idea or person of high significance, such as an absent parent or a recently deceased relative, into oneself. According to Holland’s findings, each reader introjects a fantasy in the text, then modifies it with this and other defense mechanisms into an interpretation. In 1973, however, having recorded responses from real readers, Holland found variations too great to fit this model in which responses are mostly alike but show minor individual variations.
Holland then developed a second model based on his case studies 5 Readers Reading. An individual has (in the brain) a core identity theme. This core gives that individual a certain style of being--and reading. Each reader uses the physical literary work plus invariable codes (such as the shapes of letters) plus variable canons (different "interpretive communities", for example) plus an individual style of reading to build a response both like and unlike other readers' responses. 

Reuven Tsur in Israel has developed, in great detail, experimental models for the expressivity of poetic rhythms, of metaphor, and of word-sound in poetry. Richard Gerrig in the U.S. has experimented with the reader's state of mind during and after a literary experience. He has shown how readers put aside ordinary knowledge and values while they read, treating, for example, criminals as heroes. His controlled studies have also investigated how readers accept, while reading, improbable or fantastic things (Coleridge's "willing suspension of disbelief'), but discard them after they have finished.
Two notable researchers are Dolf Zillmann and Peter Vorderer, both working in the field of communications and media psychology. Both have theorized and tested ideas about what produces emotions such as suspense, curiosity, surprise in readers, the necessary factors involved, and the role the reader plays. Jenefer Robinson, a researcher in emotion, has recently blended her studies on emotion with its role in literature, music, and art. 

Wolfgang Iser exemplifies the German tendency to theorize the reader and so posit a uniform response. For him, a literary work is not an object in itself but an effect to be explained. But he asserts this response is controlled by the text. For the "real" reader, he substitutes an implied reader, who is the reader a given literary work requires. In his model, the text controls. The reader's activities are confined within limits set by the literary work. Iser describes the process of first reading, the subsequent development of the text into a 'whole', and how the dialogue between the reader and text takes place. 

Another important German reader-response critic was Hans-Robert Jauss, who defined literature as a dialectic process of production and reception. For Jauss, readers have a certain mental set, a "horizon" of expectations (Erwartungshorizont), from which perspective each reader, at any given time in history, reads. Reader-response criticism establishes these horizons of expectation by reading literary works of the period in question.
Reader-response critics hold that, to understand the literary experience or the meaning of a text, one must look to the processes readers use to create that meaning and experience. Traditional, text-oriented critics often think of reader-response criticism as an anarchic subjectivism, allowing readers to interpret a text any way they want. They accuse reader-response critics of saying the text doesn't exist. By contrast, text-oriented critics assume that one can understand a text while remaining immune to one's own culture, status, personality, and so on, and hence "objectively". To reader-response critics, however, reading is always both subjective and objective, and their question is not "which" but "how". Some reader-response critics (uniformists) assume a bi-active model of reading: the literary work controls part of the response and the reader controls part. Others, who see that position as internally contradictory, claim that the reader controls the whole transaction (individualists). In such a reader-active model, readers and audiences use amateur or professional procedures for reading (shared by many others) as well as their personal issues and values.
Another objection to reader-response criticism is that it fails to account for the text being able to expand the reader's understanding. While readers can and do put their own ideas and experiences into a work, they are at the same time gaining new understanding through the text. This is something that is generally overlooked in reader-response criticism. 

Reader-response criticism relates to psychology, both experimental psychology for those attempting to find principles of response, and psychoanalytic psychology for those studying individual responses. Post-behaviorist psychologists of reading and of perception support the idea that it is the reader who makes meaning. Increasingly, cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics, neuroscience, and neuropsychoanalysis have given reader-response critics powerful and detailed models for the aesthetic process. 

Q. Based on information from the passage, fill the blanks with  the most appropriate pair of words.

Because it rests on_____________principles, a readerresponse approach readily_____________to other arts.

Reader-response theory recognises the reader as an active agent who imparts "real existence" to the work and completes its meaning through interpretation. Reader-response criticism argues that literature should be viewed as a performing art in which each reader creates his or her own, possibly unique, text-related performance. It stands in total opposition to the theories of formalism and the New Criticism, in which the reader's role in re-creating literary works is ignored. New Criticism had emphasised that only that which is within a text is part of the meaning of a text. No appeal to the authority or intention of the author, nor to the psychology of the reader, was allowed in the discussions of orthodox New Critics. The New Critics' position assumed an objective, fixed text that could be studied apart from any human being, and this assumption persisted even into postmodern criticism.
David Bleich had begun in the 1960s collecting statements by influencing students of their feelings and associations. He used these to theorize about the reading process and to refocus the classroom teaching of literature. He claimed that his classes "generated" knowledge, that is, knowledge of how particular persons recreate texts.

Michael Steig and Walter Slatoff have, like Bleich, shown that every students' highly personal responses can provide the basis for critical analyses in the classroom. Jeffrey Berman has encouraged students responding to texts to write anonymously and share with their classmates writings in response to literary works about sensitive subjects like drugs, suicidal thoughts, death in the family, parental abuse and the like. A kind of catharsis bordering on therapy results. In general, American reader-response critics have focused on individual readers' responses. American journals like Reader, Reading Research Quarterly, and others publish articles applying reader-response theory to the teaching of literature. 

In 1967, Stanley Fish published Surprised by Sin, the first study of a large literary work (Paradise Lost) that focused on its readers' experience. Since 1976, however, he has turned to real differences among real readers. He explores the reading tactics endorsed by different critical schools, by the literary professoriate, and by the legal profession, introducing the idea of "interpretive communities" that share particular modes of reading. In 1968, Norman Holland drew on psychoanalytic psychology in The Dynamics of Literary Response to model the literary work. He explored Freud’s idea about introjection, involving the incorporation of attributes, attitudes or qualities of an absent idea or person of high significance, such as an absent parent or a recently deceased relative, into oneself. According to Holland’s findings, each reader introjects a fantasy in the text, then modifies it with this and other defense mechanisms into an interpretation. In 1973, however, having recorded responses from real readers, Holland found variations too great to fit this model in which responses are mostly alike but show minor individual variations.
Holland then developed a second model based on his case studies 5 Readers Reading. An individual has (in the brain) a core identity theme. This core gives that individual a certain style of being--and reading. Each reader uses the physical literary work plus invariable codes (such as the shapes of letters) plus variable canons (different "interpretive communities", for example) plus an individual style of reading to build a response both like and unlike other readers' responses. 

Reuven Tsur in Israel has developed, in great detail, experimental models for the expressivity of poetic rhythms, of metaphor, and of word-sound in poetry. Richard Gerrig in the U.S. has experimented with the reader's state of mind during and after a literary experience. He has shown how readers put aside ordinary knowledge and values while they read, treating, for example, criminals as heroes. His controlled studies have also investigated how readers accept, while reading, improbable or fantastic things (Coleridge's "willing suspension of disbelief'), but discard them after they have finished.
Two notable researchers are Dolf Zillmann and Peter Vorderer, both working in the field of communications and media psychology. Both have theorized and tested ideas about what produces emotions such as suspense, curiosity, surprise in readers, the necessary factors involved, and the role the reader plays. Jenefer Robinson, a researcher in emotion, has recently blended her studies on emotion with its role in literature, music, and art. 

Wolfgang Iser exemplifies the German tendency to theorize the reader and so posit a uniform response. For him, a literary work is not an object in itself but an effect to be explained. But he asserts this response is controlled by the text. For the "real" reader, he substitutes an implied reader, who is the reader a given literary work requires. In his model, the text controls. The reader's activities are confined within limits set by the literary work. Iser describes the process of first reading, the subsequent development of the text into a 'whole', and how the dialogue between the reader and text takes place. 

Another important German reader-response critic was Hans-Robert Jauss, who defined literature as a dialectic process of production and reception. For Jauss, readers have a certain mental set, a "horizon" of expectations (Erwartungshorizont), from which perspective each reader, at any given time in history, reads. Reader-response criticism establishes these horizons of expectation by reading literary works of the period in question.
Reader-response critics hold that, to understand the literary experience or the meaning of a text, one must look to the processes readers use to create that meaning and experience. Traditional, text-oriented critics often think of reader-response criticism as an anarchic subjectivism, allowing readers to interpret a text any way they want. They accuse reader-response critics of saying the text doesn't exist. By contrast, text-oriented critics assume that one can understand a text while remaining immune to one's own culture, status, personality, and so on, and hence "objectively". To reader-response critics, however, reading is always both subjective and objective, and their question is not "which" but "how". Some reader-response critics (uniformists) assume a bi-active model of reading: the literary work controls part of the response and the reader controls part. Others, who see that position as internally contradictory, claim that the reader controls the whole transaction (individualists). In such a reader-active model, readers and audiences use amateur or professional procedures for reading (shared by many others) as well as their personal issues and values.
Another objection to reader-response criticism is that it fails to account for the text being able to expand the reader's understanding. While readers can and do put their own ideas and experiences into a work, they are at the same time gaining new understanding through the text. This is something that is generally overlooked in reader-response criticism. 

Reader-response criticism relates to psychology, both experimental psychology for those attempting to find principles of response, and psychoanalytic psychology for those studying individual responses. Post-behaviorist psychologists of reading and of perception support the idea that it is the reader who makes meaning. Increasingly, cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics, neuroscience, and neuropsychoanalysis have given reader-response critics powerful and detailed models for the aesthetic process. 

Q. Which of the following statements is an incorrect statement about the Reader-Response theory?

Reader-response theory recognises the reader as an active agent who imparts "real existence" to the work and completes its meaning through interpretation. Reader-response criticism argues that literature should be viewed as a performing art in which each reader creates his or her own, possibly unique, text-related performance. It stands in total opposition to the theories of formalism and the New Criticism, in which the reader's role in re-creating literary works is ignored. New Criticism had emphasised that only that which is within a text is part of the meaning of a text. No appeal to the authority or intention of the author, nor to the psychology of the reader, was allowed in the discussions of orthodox New Critics. The New Critics' position assumed an objective, fixed text that could be studied apart from any human being, and this assumption persisted even into postmodern criticism.
David Bleich had begun in the 1960s collecting statements by influencing students of their feelings and associations. He used these to theorize about the reading process and to refocus the classroom teaching of literature. He claimed that his classes "generated" knowledge, that is, knowledge of how particular persons recreate texts.

Michael Steig and Walter Slatoff have, like Bleich, shown that every students' highly personal responses can provide the basis for critical analyses in the classroom. Jeffrey Berman has encouraged students responding to texts to write anonymously and share with their classmates writings in response to literary works about sensitive subjects like drugs, suicidal thoughts, death in the family, parental abuse and the like. A kind of catharsis bordering on therapy results. In general, American reader-response critics have focused on individual readers' responses. American journals like Reader, Reading Research Quarterly, and others publish articles applying reader-response theory to the teaching of literature. 

In 1967, Stanley Fish published Surprised by Sin, the first study of a large literary work (Paradise Lost) that focused on its readers' experience. Since 1976, however, he has turned to real differences among real readers. He explores the reading tactics endorsed by different critical schools, by the literary professoriate, and by the legal profession, introducing the idea of "interpretive communities" that share particular modes of reading. In 1968, Norman Holland drew on psychoanalytic psychology in The Dynamics of Literary Response to model the literary work. He explored Freud’s idea about introjection, involving the incorporation of attributes, attitudes or qualities of an absent idea or person of high significance, such as an absent parent or a recently deceased relative, into oneself. According to Holland’s findings, each reader introjects a fantasy in the text, then modifies it with this and other defense mechanisms into an interpretation. In 1973, however, having recorded responses from real readers, Holland found variations too great to fit this model in which responses are mostly alike but show minor individual variations.
Holland then developed a second model based on his case studies 5 Readers Reading. An individual has (in the brain) a core identity theme. This core gives that individual a certain style of being--and reading. Each reader uses the physical literary work plus invariable codes (such as the shapes of letters) plus variable canons (different "interpretive communities", for example) plus an individual style of reading to build a response both like and unlike other readers' responses. 

Reuven Tsur in Israel has developed, in great detail, experimental models for the expressivity of poetic rhythms, of metaphor, and of word-sound in poetry. Richard Gerrig in the U.S. has experimented with the reader's state of mind during and after a literary experience. He has shown how readers put aside ordinary knowledge and values while they read, treating, for example, criminals as heroes. His controlled studies have also investigated how readers accept, while reading, improbable or fantastic things (Coleridge's "willing suspension of disbelief'), but discard them after they have finished.
Two notable researchers are Dolf Zillmann and Peter Vorderer, both working in the field of communications and media psychology. Both have theorized and tested ideas about what produces emotions such as suspense, curiosity, surprise in readers, the necessary factors involved, and the role the reader plays. Jenefer Robinson, a researcher in emotion, has recently blended her studies on emotion with its role in literature, music, and art. 

Wolfgang Iser exemplifies the German tendency to theorize the reader and so posit a uniform response. For him, a literary work is not an object in itself but an effect to be explained. But he asserts this response is controlled by the text. For the "real" reader, he substitutes an implied reader, who is the reader a given literary work requires. In his model, the text controls. The reader's activities are confined within limits set by the literary work. Iser describes the process of first reading, the subsequent development of the text into a 'whole', and how the dialogue between the reader and text takes place. 

Another important German reader-response critic was Hans-Robert Jauss, who defined literature as a dialectic process of production and reception. For Jauss, readers have a certain mental set, a "horizon" of expectations (Erwartungshorizont), from which perspective each reader, at any given time in history, reads. Reader-response criticism establishes these horizons of expectation by reading literary works of the period in question.
Reader-response critics hold that, to understand the literary experience or the meaning of a text, one must look to the processes readers use to create that meaning and experience. Traditional, text-oriented critics often think of reader-response criticism as an anarchic subjectivism, allowing readers to interpret a text any way they want. They accuse reader-response critics of saying the text doesn't exist. By contrast, text-oriented critics assume that one can understand a text while remaining immune to one's own culture, status, personality, and so on, and hence "objectively". To reader-response critics, however, reading is always both subjective and objective, and their question is not "which" but "how". Some reader-response critics (uniformists) assume a bi-active model of reading: the literary work controls part of the response and the reader controls part. Others, who see that position as internally contradictory, claim that the reader controls the whole transaction (individualists). In such a reader-active model, readers and audiences use amateur or professional procedures for reading (shared by many others) as well as their personal issues and values.
Another objection to reader-response criticism is that it fails to account for the text being able to expand the reader's understanding. While readers can and do put their own ideas and experiences into a work, they are at the same time gaining new understanding through the text. This is something that is generally overlooked in reader-response criticism. 

Reader-response criticism relates to psychology, both experimental psychology for those attempting to find principles of response, and psychoanalytic psychology for those studying individual responses. Post-behaviorist psychologists of reading and of perception support the idea that it is the reader who makes meaning. Increasingly, cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics, neuroscience, and neuropsychoanalysis have given reader-response critics powerful and detailed models for the aesthetic process. 

Q. In the context of this passage, which of the following statements is not the meaning of the word ‘introjection’?

Read the sentences and choose the option that best arranges them in a logical order.

A. The star roasts the exoplanet and rips at it with its gravity.
B. Last year the Hubble Space Telescope provided the first evidence of an evaporating atmosphere, from an exoplanet, HD 209458b, that circles its star at a distance of less than 1/20th the distance between the sun and Earth.
C. Roughly a sixth are ‘hot Jupiters' surprisingly near their stars, all closer than Mercury is to our sun. Some hot Jupiters live just too close to their stars for comfort.
D. The result: the exoplanet blows away at least 10,000 tons of gas a second, which streaks off in a vast plume 200,000 kilometres long.
E. Since 1991 observers have discovered some 120 exoplanets - worlds outside our solar system. All but three appear, by their great size and low density, to be gas giants.