Group Question For each of the passages below, read the passage, and mark the most appropriate answer to the question(s). Have you noticed how environmental campaigners almost inevitably say that not only is global warming happening and bad, but also that what we are seeing is even worse than expected? This is odd, because any reasonable understanding of how science proceeds would expect that, as we refine our knowledge, we find that things are sometimes worse and sometimes better than we expected, and that the most likely distribution would be about 50-50. Environmental campaigners, however, almost invariably see it as 100-0. If we are regularly being surprised in just one direction, if our models get blindsided by an ever-worsening reality, that does not bode well for our scientific approach. Indeed, one can argue that if the models constantly get something wrong, it is probably because the models are wrong. And if we cannot trust our models, we cannot know what policy action to take if we want to make a difference. Yet, if new facts constantly show us that the consequences of climate change are getting worse and worse, high-minded arguments about the scientific method might not carry much weight. Certainly, this seems to be the prevailing bet in the spin on global warming. It is, again, worse than we thought, and, despite our failing models, we will gamble on knowing just what to do: cut CO2 emissions dramatically. But it is simply not correct that climate data are systematically worse than expected; in many respects, they are spot on, or even better than expected. That we hear otherwise is an indication of the media’s addiction to worst-case stories, but that makes a poor foundation for smart policies. The most obvious point about global warming is that the planet is heating up. It has warmed about 1°C (1.8°F) over the past century, and is predicted by the United Nations’ climate panel (IPCC) to warm between 1.6-3.8°C (2.9-6.8°F) during this century, mainly owing to increased CO2 . An average o f all 38 available standard runs from the IPCC shows that models expect a temperature increase in this decade of about 0.2°C. But this is not at all what we have seen. And this is true for all surface temperature measures, and even more so for both satellite measures. Temperatures in this decade have not been worse than expected; in fact, they have not even been increasing. They have actually decreased by between 0.01 and 0.1 °C per decade. On the most important indicator of global warming, temperature development, we ought to hear that the data are actually much better than expected. Likewise, and arguably much more importantly, the heat content of the world’s oceans has been dropping for the past four years where we have measurements. Whereas energy in terms of temperature can disappear relatively easily from the light atmosphere, it is unclear where the heat from global warming should have gone - and certainly this is again much better than expected. We hear constantly about how the Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than expected, and this is true. But most serious scientists also allow that global warming is only part of the explanation. Another part is that the so-called Arctic Oscillation of wind patterns over the Arctic Ocean is now in a state that it does not allow build-up of old ice, but immediately flushes most ice into the North Atlantic. More importantly, we rarely hear that the Antarctic sea ice is not only not declining, but is above average for the past year. IPCC models would expect declining sea ice in both hemispheres, but, whereas the Arctic is doing worse than expected, Antarctica is doing better. Ironically, the Associated Press, along with many other news outlets, told us in 2007 that the “Arctic is screaming”, and that the Northwest Passage was open “for the first time in recorded history”. Yet the BBC reported in 2000 that the fabled Northwest Passage was already without ice. We are constantly inundated with stories of how sea levels will rise, and how one study after another finds that it will be much worse than what the IPCC predicts. But most models find results within the IPCC range of a sea-level increase of 18 to 59 centimeters (7-23 inches) this century. This is of course why the thousands of IPCC scientists projected that range. Yet studies claiming one meter or more obviously make for better headlines. Since 1992, we have had satellites measuring the rise in global sea levels, and they have shown a stable increase of 3.2 millimeters per year (1/8 of an inch) - spot on compared to the IPCC projection. Moreover, over the last two years, sea levels have not increased at all - actually, they show a slight drop . Should we not be told that this is much better than expected? Hurricanes were the stock image of A1 Gore’s famous film on climate change, and certainly the United States was battered in 2004 and 2005, leading to wild claims of ever stronger and costlier storms in the future. But in the two years since, the costs have been well below average, virtually disappearing in 2006. That is definitely better than expected. Gore quoted MIT hurricane researcher Kerry Emmanuel to support an alleged scientific consensus that global warming is making hurricanes much more damaging. But Emmanuel has now published a new study showing that even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries. That conclusion did not get much exposure in the media. Of course, not all things are less bad than we thought. But one-sided exaggeration is not the way forward. We urgently need balance if we are to make sensible choices. Q. According to the passage, which of the following are definitely affected by global warming?

Surface temperature, sea temperature, Arctic ocean ice, hurricanes.

Sea temperature, surface temperature, Arctic ocean ice.

Surface temperature, sea temperature, Arctic wind oscillation, Northwest passage.

Have you noticed how environmental campaigners almost inevitably say that not only is global warming happening and bad, but also that what we are seeing is even worse than expected? This is odd, because any reasonable understanding of how science proceeds would expect that, as we refine our knowledge, we find that things are sometimes worse and sometimes better than we expected, and that the most likely distribution would be about 50-50. Environmental campaigners, however, almost invariably see it as 100-0. If we are regularly being surprised in just one direction, if our models get blindsided by an ever-worsening reality, that does not bode well for our scientific approach. Indeed, one can argue that if the models constantly get something wrong, it is probably because the models are wrong. And if we cannot trust our models, we cannot know what policy action to take if we want to make a difference. Yet, if new facts constantly show us that the consequences of climate change are getting worse and worse, high-minded arguments about the scientific method might not carry much weight. Certainly, this seems to be the prevailing bet in the spin on global warming. It is, again, worse than we thought, and, despite our failing models, we will gamble on knowing just what to do: cut CO2 emissions dramatically. But it is simply not correct that climate data are systematically worse than expected; in many respects, they are spot on, or even better than expected. That we hear otherwise is an indication of the media’s addiction to worst-case stories, but that makes a poor foundation for smart policies. The most obvious point about global warming is that the planet is heating up. It has warmed about 1°C (1.8°F) over the past century, and is predicted by the United Nations’ climate panel (IPCC) to warm between 1.6-3.8°C (2.9-6.8°F) during this century, mainly owing to increased CO2 . An average o f all 38 available standard runs from the IPCC shows that models expect a temperature increase in this decade of about 0.2°C. But this is not at all what we have seen. And this is true for all surface temperature measures, and even more so for both satellite measures. Temperatures in this decade have not been worse than expected; in fact, they have not even been increasing. They have actually decreased by between 0.01 and 0.1 °C per decade. On the most important indicator of global warming, temperature development, we ought to hear that the data are actually much better than expected. Likewise, and arguably much more importantly, the heat content of the world’s oceans has been dropping for the past four years where we have measurements. Whereas energy in terms of temperature can disappear relatively easily from the light atmosphere, it is unclear where the heat from global warming should have gone - and certainly this is again much better than expected. We hear constantly about how the Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than expected, and this is true. But most serious scientists also allow that global warming is only part of the explanation. Another part is that the so-called Arctic Oscillation of wind patterns over the Arctic Ocean is now in a state that it does not allow build-up of old ice, but immediately flushes most ice into the North Atlantic. More importantly, we rarely hear that the Antarctic sea ice is not only not declining, but is above average for the past year. IPCC models would expect declining sea ice in both hemispheres, but, whereas the Arctic is doing worse than expected, Antarctica is doing better. Ironically, the Associated Press, along with many other news outlets, told us in 2007 that the “Arctic is screaming”, and that the Northwest Passage was open “for the first time in recorded history”. Yet the BBC reported in 2000 that the fabled Northwest Passage was already without ice. We are constantly inundated with stories of how sea levels will rise, and how one study after another finds that it will be much worse than what the IPCC predicts. But most models find results within the IPCC range of a sea-level increase of 18 to 59 centimeters (7-23 inches) this century. This is of course why the thousands of IPCC scientists projected that range. Yet studies claiming one meter or more obviously make for better headlines. Since 1992, we have had satellites measuring the rise in global sea levels, and they have shown a stable increase of 3.2 millimeters per year (1/8 of an inch) - spot on compared to the IPCC projection. Moreover, over the last two years, sea levels have not increased at all - actually, they show a slight drop . Should we not be told that this is much better than expected? Hurricanes were the stock image of A1 Gore’s famous film on climate change, and certainly the United States was battered in 2004 and 2005, leading to wild claims of ever stronger and costlier storms in the future. But in the two years since, the costs have been well below average, virtually disappearing in 2006. That is definitely better than expected. Gore quoted MIT hurricane researcher Kerry Emmanuel to support an alleged scientific consensus that global warming is making hurricanes much more damaging. But Emmanuel has now published a new study showing that even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries. That conclusion did not get much exposure in the media. Of course, not all things are less bad than we thought. But one-sided exaggeration is not the way forward. We urgently need balance if we are to make sensible choices. Q. Which of the following best expresses the main idea in the passage?

Climate data are not always worse than expected; things may be really getting better; we need a scientific approach to climate change. In the absence of credible scientific models, the available data on

climate change are contradictory and cannot be relied on. We need to strike a balance in order that we know what policy action is to be taken.

The available data about climate change are contradictory and unreliable. The world is in fact getting better, except that we need to reduce CO 2 emissions.

One-sided exaggeration has hindered an intelligent assessment of climate change; hence we urgently need balance if we are to make sensible choices that would make a difference.

Have you noticed how environmental campaigners almost inevitably say that not only is global warming happening and bad, but also that what we are seeing is even worse than expected? This is odd, because any reasonable understanding of how science proceeds would expect that, as we refine our knowledge, we find that things are sometimes worse and sometimes better than we expected, and that the most likely distribution would be about 50-50. Environmental campaigners, however, almost invariably see it as 100-0. If we are regularly being surprised in just one direction, if our models get blindsided by an ever-worsening reality, that does not bode well for our scientific approach. Indeed, one can argue that if the models constantly get something wrong, it is probably because the models are wrong. And if we cannot trust our models, we cannot know what policy action to take if we want to make a difference. Yet, if new facts constantly show us that the consequences of climate change are getting worse and worse, high-minded arguments about the scientific method might not carry much weight. Certainly, this seems to be the prevailing bet in the spin on global warming. It is, again, worse than we thought, and, despite our failing models, we will gamble on knowing just what to do: cut CO2 emissions dramatically. But it is simply not correct that climate data are systematically worse than expected; in many respects, they are spot on, or even better than expected. That we hear otherwise is an indication of the media’s addiction to worst-case stories, but that makes a poor foundation for smart policies. The most obvious point about global warming is that the planet is heating up. It has warmed about 1°C (1.8°F) over the past century, and is predicted by the United Nations’ climate panel (IPCC) to warm between 1.6-3.8°C (2.9-6.8°F) during this century, mainly owing to increased CO2 . An average o f all 38 available standard runs from the IPCC shows that models expect a temperature increase in this decade of about 0.2°C. But this is not at all what we have seen. And this is true for all surface temperature measures, and even more so for both satellite measures. Temperatures in this decade have not been worse than expected; in fact, they have not even been increasing. They have actually decreased by between 0.01 and 0.1 °C per decade. On the most important indicator of global warming, temperature development, we ought to hear that the data are actually much better than expected. Likewise, and arguably much more importantly, the heat content of the world’s oceans has been dropping for the past four years where we have measurements. Whereas energy in terms of temperature can disappear relatively easily from the light atmosphere, it is unclear where the heat from global warming should have gone - and certainly this is again much better than expected. We hear constantly about how the Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than expected, and this is true. But most serious scientists also allow that global warming is only part of the explanation. Another part is that the so-called Arctic Oscillation of wind patterns over the Arctic Ocean is now in a state that it does not allow build-up of old ice, but immediately flushes most ice into the North Atlantic. More importantly, we rarely hear that the Antarctic sea ice is not only not declining, but is above average for the past year. IPCC models would expect declining sea ice in both hemispheres, but, whereas the Arctic is doing worse than expected, Antarctica is doing better. Ironically, the Associated Press, along with many other news outlets, told us in 2007 that the “Arctic is screaming”, and that the Northwest Passage was open “for the first time in recorded history”. Yet the BBC reported in 2000 that the fabled Northwest Passage was already without ice. We are constantly inundated with stories of how sea levels will rise, and how one study after another finds that it will be much worse than what the IPCC predicts. But most models find results within the IPCC range of a sea-level increase of 18 to 59 centimeters (7-23 inches) this century. This is of course why the thousands of IPCC scientists projected that range. Yet studies claiming one meter or more obviously make for better headlines. Since 1992, we have had satellites measuring the rise in global sea levels, and they have shown a stable increase of 3.2 millimeters per year (1/8 of an inch) - spot on compared to the IPCC projection. Moreover, over the last two years, sea levels have not increased at all - actually, they show a slight drop . Should we not be told that this is much better than expected? Hurricanes were the stock image of A1 Gore’s famous film on climate change, and certainly the United States was battered in 2004 and 2005, leading to wild claims of ever stronger and costlier storms in the future. But in the two years since, the costs have been well below average, virtually disappearing in 2006. That is definitely better than expected. Gore quoted MIT hurricane researcher Kerry Emmanuel to support an alleged scientific consensus that global warming is making hurricanes much more damaging. But Emmanuel has now published a new study showing that even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries. That conclusion did not get much exposure in the media. Of course, not all things are less bad than we thought. But one-sided exaggeration is not the way forward. We urgently need balance if we are to make sensible choices. Q. From the passage, “any reasonable understanding of how science proceeds would expect that, as we refine our knowledge, we find that things are sometimes worse and sometimes better than we expected, and that the most likely distribution would be about 50-50. Environmental campaigners, however, almost invariably see it as 100-0”. What is the most likely reason for this?

Our models are blindsided by an ever worsening reality.

Our approach is not scientific.

Environmental campaigners are exaggerating the problem.

Have you noticed how environmental campaigners almost inevitably say that not only is global warming happening and bad, but also that what we are seeing is even worse than expected? This is odd, because any reasonable understanding of how science proceeds would expect that, as we refine our knowledge, we find that things are sometimes worse and sometimes better than we expected, and that the most likely distribution would be about 50-50. Environmental campaigners, however, almost invariably see it as 100-0. If we are regularly being surprised in just one direction, if our models get blindsided by an ever-worsening reality, that does not bode well for our scientific approach. Indeed, one can argue that if the models constantly get something wrong, it is probably because the models are wrong. And if we cannot trust our models, we cannot know what policy action to take if we want to make a difference. Yet, if new facts constantly show us that the consequences of climate change are getting worse and worse, high-minded arguments about the scientific method might not carry much weight. Certainly, this seems to be the prevailing bet in the spin on global warming. It is, again, worse than we thought, and, despite our failing models, we will gamble on knowing just what to do: cut CO2 emissions dramatically. But it is simply not correct that climate data are systematically worse than expected; in many respects, they are spot on, or even better than expected. That we hear otherwise is an indication of the media’s addiction to worst-case stories, but that makes a poor foundation for smart policies. The most obvious point about global warming is that the planet is heating up. It has warmed about 1°C (1.8°F) over the past century, and is predicted by the United Nations’ climate panel (IPCC) to warm between 1.6-3.8°C (2.9-6.8°F) during this century, mainly owing to increased CO2 . An average o f all 38 available standard runs from the IPCC shows that models expect a temperature increase in this decade of about 0.2°C. But this is not at all what we have seen. And this is true for all surface temperature measures, and even more so for both satellite measures. Temperatures in this decade have not been worse than expected; in fact, they have not even been increasing. They have actually decreased by between 0.01 and 0.1 °C per decade. On the most important indicator of global warming, temperature development, we ought to hear that the data are actually much better than expected. Likewise, and arguably much more importantly, the heat content of the world’s oceans has been dropping for the past four years where we have measurements. Whereas energy in terms of temperature can disappear relatively easily from the light atmosphere, it is unclear where the heat from global warming should have gone - and certainly this is again much better than expected. We hear constantly about how the Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than expected, and this is true. But most serious scientists also allow that global warming is only part of the explanation. Another part is that the so-called Arctic Oscillation of wind patterns over the Arctic Ocean is now in a state that it does not allow build-up of old ice, but immediately flushes most ice into the North Atlantic. More importantly, we rarely hear that the Antarctic sea ice is not only not declining, but is above average for the past year. IPCC models would expect declining sea ice in both hemispheres, but, whereas the Arctic is doing worse than expected, Antarctica is doing better. Ironically, the Associated Press, along with many other news outlets, told us in 2007 that the “Arctic is screaming”, and that the Northwest Passage was open “for the first time in recorded history”. Yet the BBC reported in 2000 that the fabled Northwest Passage was already without ice. We are constantly inundated with stories of how sea levels will rise, and how one study after another finds that it will be much worse than what the IPCC predicts. But most models find results within the IPCC range of a sea-level increase of 18 to 59 centimeters (7-23 inches) this century. This is of course why the thousands of IPCC scientists projected that range. Yet studies claiming one meter or more obviously make for better headlines. Since 1992, we have had satellites measuring the rise in global sea levels, and they have shown a stable increase of 3.2 millimeters per year (1/8 of an inch) - spot on compared to the IPCC projection. Moreover, over the last two years, sea levels have not increased at all - actually, they show a slight drop . Should we not be told that this is much better than expected? Hurricanes were the stock image of A1 Gore’s famous film on climate change, and certainly the United States was battered in 2004 and 2005, leading to wild claims of ever stronger and costlier storms in the future. But in the two years since, the costs have been well below average, virtually disappearing in 2006. That is definitely better than expected. Gore quoted MIT hurricane researcher Kerry Emmanuel to support an alleged scientific consensus that global warming is making hurricanes much more damaging. But Emmanuel has now published a new study showing that even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries. That conclusion did not get much exposure in the media. Of course, not all things are less bad than we thought. But one-sided exaggeration is not the way forward. We urgently need balance if we are to make sensible choices. Q. “Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than expected” because:

Arctic Oscillation of wind patterns over the Arctic Ocean is now in a state that it does not allow build-up of old ice, but immediately flushes most ice into the North Atlantic.

Dip in sea temperature and Arctic Oscillation of wind patterns over the Arctic Ocean are now in a state that it does not allow build-up of old ice, but immediately flushes most ice into the North Atlantic. Rise in sea and surface temperatures and Arctic Oscillation of wind

patterns over the Arctic Ocean are now in a state that it does not allow build-up of old ice, but immediately flushes most ice into the North Atlantic.

Have you noticed how environmental campaigners almost inevitably say that not only is global warming happening and bad, but also that what we are seeing is even worse than expected? This is odd, because any reasonable understanding of how science proceeds would expect that, as we refine our knowledge, we find that things are sometimes worse and sometimes better than we expected, and that the most likely distribution would be about 50-50. Environmental campaigners, however, almost invariably see it as 100-0. If we are regularly being surprised in just one direction, if our models get blindsided by an ever-worsening reality, that does not bode well for our scientific approach. Indeed, one can argue that if the models constantly get something wrong, it is probably because the models are wrong. And if we cannot trust our models, we cannot know what policy action to take if we want to make a difference. Yet, if new facts constantly show us that the consequences of climate change are getting worse and worse, high-minded arguments about the scientific method might not carry much weight. Certainly, this seems to be the prevailing bet in the spin on global warming. It is, again, worse than we thought, and, despite our failing models, we will gamble on knowing just what to do: cut CO2 emissions dramatically. But it is simply not correct that climate data are systematically worse than expected; in many respects, they are spot on, or even better than expected. That we hear otherwise is an indication of the media’s addiction to worst-case stories, but that makes a poor foundation for smart policies. The most obvious point about global warming is that the planet is heating up. It has warmed about 1°C (1.8°F) over the past century, and is predicted by the United Nations’ climate panel (IPCC) to warm between 1.6-3.8°C (2.9-6.8°F) during this century, mainly owing to increased CO2 . An average o f all 38 available standard runs from the IPCC shows that models expect a temperature increase in this decade of about 0.2°C. But this is not at all what we have seen. And this is true for all surface temperature measures, and even more so for both satellite measures. Temperatures in this decade have not been worse than expected; in fact, they have not even been increasing. They have actually decreased by between 0.01 and 0.1 °C per decade. On the most important indicator of global warming, temperature development, we ought to hear that the data are actually much better than expected. Likewise, and arguably much more importantly, the heat content of the world’s oceans has been dropping for the past four years where we have measurements. Whereas energy in terms of temperature can disappear relatively easily from the light atmosphere, it is unclear where the heat from global warming should have gone - and certainly this is again much better than expected. We hear constantly about how the Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than expected, and this is true. But most serious scientists also allow that global warming is only part of the explanation. Another part is that the so-called Arctic Oscillation of wind patterns over the Arctic Ocean is now in a state that it does not allow build-up of old ice, but immediately flushes most ice into the North Atlantic. More importantly, we rarely hear that the Antarctic sea ice is not only not declining, but is above average for the past year. IPCC models would expect declining sea ice in both hemispheres, but, whereas the Arctic is doing worse than expected, Antarctica is doing better. Ironically, the Associated Press, along with many other news outlets, told us in 2007 that the “Arctic is screaming”, and that the Northwest Passage was open “for the first time in recorded history”. Yet the BBC reported in 2000 that the fabled Northwest Passage was already without ice. We are constantly inundated with stories of how sea levels will rise, and how one study after another finds that it will be much worse than what the IPCC predicts. But most models find results within the IPCC range of a sea-level increase of 18 to 59 centimeters (7-23 inches) this century. This is of course why the thousands of IPCC scientists projected that range. Yet studies claiming one meter or more obviously make for better headlines. Since 1992, we have had satellites measuring the rise in global sea levels, and they have shown a stable increase of 3.2 millimeters per year (1/8 of an inch) - spot on compared to the IPCC projection. Moreover, over the last two years, sea levels have not increased at all - actually, they show a slight drop . Should we not be told that this is much better than expected? Hurricanes were the stock image of A1 Gore’s famous film on climate change, and certainly the United States was battered in 2004 and 2005, leading to wild claims of ever stronger and costlier storms in the future. But in the two years since, the costs have been well below average, virtually disappearing in 2006. That is definitely better than expected. Gore quoted MIT hurricane researcher Kerry Emmanuel to support an alleged scientific consensus that global warming is making hurricanes much more damaging. But Emmanuel has now published a new study showing that even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries. That conclusion did not get much exposure in the media. Of course, not all things are less bad than we thought. But one-sided exaggeration is not the way forward. We urgently need balance if we are to make sensible choices. Q. Which of the following cannot be inferred from the passage?

Antarctic sea ice has not declined because there is no oscillation of wind patterns over the Antarctic, unlike the Arctic.

The expected policy response to global warming is to cut CO 2 emissions.

Our models for forecasting global warming are not wrong.

Global warming will not necessarily influence hurricane activity ' significantly.

Group Question The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question. If perception of sound depends on our state of mind, then conversely a state of mind can hardly exist without an external world with which it is in relation and that conditions it - either our immediate present environment, or something that happened in the past and that now echoes or goes on happening in our minds. Silence, then, is always relative. Our experience of it is more interesting than the acoustic effect itself. And the most interesting kind of silence is that of a mind free of words, free of thoughts, free of language, a mental silence. Arguably, when we have a perception of being tormented by noise, a lot of that noise is actually in our heads - the interminable fizz of anxious thoughts or the self-regarding monologue that for much of the time constitutes our consciousness. Our objection to noise in the outer world, very often, is that it makes it harder to focus on the buzz we produce for ourselves in our inner world. Sitting still, denying yourself physical movement, the mind’s instinctive reaction is to retreat into its normal buzzing monologue - hoping that focusing the mind elsewhere will relieve physical discomfort. Silence, then, combined with stillness - the two are intimately related - invites us to observe the relationship between consciousness and the body, in movement and moving thought. In fact, what you actually discover is less personal than you would suppose. You discover how the construct of consciousness and self, something we all share, normally gets through time, to a large extent by ignoring our physical being and existence in the present moment. This form of meditation alters the mind’s relationship with the body. It invites the meditator to focus attention on all parts of the body equally, without exception, to guide the consciousness through the body and to contemplate sensation as it ebbs and flows in the flesh, and this without reacting in any way - without aversion to pain, without attachment to pleasure. So we become aware that even when we are still, everything inside us is constantly moving and changing. The process is a series of small gains and losses; perhaps a larger step forward, then a small relapse. If one is persistent, undaunted, in one’s attempts to concentrate, if one is successful in showing neither aversion to pain nor indulgence in pleasure, then, very slowly, the stillness and silence deepen in an atmosphere of beatitude that is simultaneously and indivisibly both physical and mental. It is as if, as the body is slowly put together and all its component parts unite in an intense present, so the historical self is taken apart and falls away. Q. The passage is primarily concerned with which of the following?

The role played by meditation in altering and enhancing an individual's state of mind and body.

Silence being subjective as everyone is conditioned differently and relates to it accordingly.

Perseverance in the practice of meditation to modify the mind’s relationship with the body.

The complementary nature of the relationship between silence and stillness.

If perception of sound depends on our state of mind, then conversely a state of mind can hardly exist without an external world with which it is in relation and that conditions it - either our immediate present environment, or something that happened in the past and that now echoes or goes on happening in our minds. Silence, then, is always relative. Our experience of it is more interesting than the acoustic effect itself. And the most interesting kind of silence is that of a mind free of words, free of thoughts, free of language, a mental silence. Arguably, when we have a perception of being tormented by noise, a lot of that noise is actually in our heads - the interminable fizz of anxious thoughts or the self-regarding monologue that for much of the time constitutes our consciousness. Our objection to noise in the outer world, very often, is that it makes it harder to focus on the buzz we produce for ourselves in our inner world. Sitting still, denying yourself physical movement, the mind’s instinctive reaction is to retreat into its normal buzzing monologue - hoping that focusing the mind elsewhere will relieve physical discomfort. Silence, then, combined with stillness - the two are intimately related - invites us to observe the relationship between consciousness and the body, in movement and moving thought. In fact, what you actually discover is less personal than you would suppose. You discover how the construct of consciousness and self, something we all share, normally gets through time, to a large extent by ignoring our physical being and existence in the present moment. This form of meditation alters the mind’s relationship with the body. It invites the meditator to focus attention on all parts of the body equally, without exception, to guide the consciousness through the body and to contemplate sensation as it ebbs and flows in the flesh, and this without reacting in any way - without aversion to pain, without attachment to pleasure. So we become aware that even when we are still, everything inside us is constantly moving and changing. The process is a series of small gains and losses; perhaps a larger step forward, then a small relapse. If one is persistent, undaunted, in one’s attempts to concentrate, if one is successful in showing neither aversion to pain nor indulgence in pleasure, then, very slowly, the stillness and silence deepen in an atmosphere of beatitude that is simultaneously and indivisibly both physical and mental. It is as if, as the body is slowly put together and all its component parts unite in an intense present, so the historical self is taken apart and falls away. Q. According to the passage, the author is least likely to agree with which of the following?

The acoustics of a normal buzzing monologue are not as annoying as noise from the outer world.

Complete transformation of consciousness and self occurs when ' silence combines with stillness.

Changes in the mind's relationship with the body are proportional to the number of gains secured

Concentration of attention primarily on the mind rather than the body ' alters the mind-body relationship.

Group Question The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question. In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is thermal radiation filling the universe almost uniformly. With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. But a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. Cosmic background radiation is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was smaller, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from its white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, stable atoms could form. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. The photons that existed at that time have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since exactly the same photons fill a larger and larger universe. This is the source for the alternate term relic radiation. Precise measurements of cosmic background radiation are critical to cosmology, since any proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation. The glow is highly uniform in all directions, but shows a very specific pattern equal to that expected if a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas is expanded to the current size of the universe. In particular, the spatial power spectrum (how much difference is observed versus how far apart the regions are on the sky) contains small irregularities, which vary with the size of the region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today. This is still a very active field of study, with scientists seeking both better data and better interpretations of the initial conditions of expansion. Although many different processes might produce the general form of the CMB, no model other than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result, most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be the best explanation for the CMB. Q. Which of the following statements is untrue about the cosmic microwave background (CMB)?

It is not possible to measure the CMB precisely.

Scientists are currently researching certain aspects of the CMB.

The CMB cannot be observed with a traditional optical telescope.

The CMB is thermal radiation filling the universe almost uniformly.

In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is thermal radiation filling the universe almost uniformly. With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. But a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. Cosmic background radiation is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was smaller, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from its white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, stable atoms could form. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. The photons that existed at that time have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since exactly the same photons fill a larger and larger universe. This is the source for the alternate term relic radiation. Precise measurements of cosmic background radiation are critical to cosmology, since any proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation. The glow is highly uniform in all directions, but shows a very specific pattern equal to that expected if a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas is expanded to the current size of the universe. In particular, the spatial power spectrum (how much difference is observed versus how far apart the regions are on the sky) contains small irregularities, which vary with the size of the region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today. This is still a very active field of study, with scientists seeking both better data and better interpretations of the initial conditions of expansion. Although many different processes might produce the general form of the CMB, no model other than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result, most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be the best explanation for the CMB. Q. We can infer that the CMB is also called relic radiation because:

It consists of photons that keep growing fainter and energetic over time.

It consists of photons that have been propagating from the time the universe was young.

It consists of atoms that became stable only after the universe had cooled enough to become transparent.

It consists of atoms that arose when the universe cooled after its ' initial white-hot hydrogen plasma state.

In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is thermal radiation filling the universe almost uniformly. With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. But a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. Cosmic background radiation is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was smaller, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from its white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, stable atoms could form. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. The photons that existed at that time have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since exactly the same photons fill a larger and larger universe. This is the source for the alternate term relic radiation. Precise measurements of cosmic background radiation are critical to cosmology, since any proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation. The glow is highly uniform in all directions, but shows a very specific pattern equal to that expected if a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas is expanded to the current size of the universe. In particular, the spatial power spectrum (how much difference is observed versus how far apart the regions are on the sky) contains small irregularities, which vary with the size of the region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today. This is still a very active field of study, with scientists seeking both better data and better interpretations of the initial conditions of expansion. Although many different processes might produce the general form of the CMB, no model other than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result, most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be the best explanation for the CMB. Q. How does the Big Bang model of the universe relate to the CMB?

The discovery of the CMB is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model, and only that model provides an explanation for the CMB.

The discovery of the CMB is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model, and only that model explains the fluctuations in the CMB.

The CMB is considered a landmark discovery predicted by the Big Bang model of the universe, though many other models provide an explanation for the CMB.

The CMB is considered a landmark discovery predicted by the Big Bang model of the universe, and that model is the best explanation of the fluctuations in the CMB.

Poor and rural people around the world rely on plants and animals for shelter, food, income, and medicine. In fact, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal on sustainable ecosystems acknowledges many developing societies’ close relationship with nature when it calls for increased “capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities.” But how is this to be achieved? The 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) provides a viable framework for reducing poverty while also conserving nature. It regulates the harvesting and exchange of more than 35,000 wildlife species across a range of locales. Nature has been described as the “GDP of the poor.” The CITES framework, combined with strong national conservation policies, can simultaneously protect wild species and benefit poor, rural, and indigenous people, by encouraging countries and communities to adopt sound environmental management plans. For example, under CITES, Andes communities shear the vicuna for its fine wool, which they sell to the luxury fashion industry in other parts of the world. Cameroonians collect African cherry bark for export to European pharmaceutical companies, and people on the Tibetan Plateau in Bhutan make a living selling caterpillar fungus to the traditional-medicine industry. However, outside of CITES, limited guidance is available to ensure that legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor. Sustainable trade often depends on poor and rural communities conserving their own resources at the local level. To see what that looks like, the International Trade Center (ITC) recently examined how people in Southeast Asia sustainably manage the CITES-listed python trade. In Vietnam, an estimated 1,000 households farm and trade pythons, and python harvesting in Malaysia provides incomes for low-skilled, low-income workers during periods when other employment opportunities are either out of season, or simply scarce because of larger economic factors. The biggest threats to the legal wildlife trade are poaching, smuggling, improper trade permitting, and animal abuse, all of which must be addressed by regulators and rural community stakeholders at the local level. Fortunately, rural communities are already in the best position to protect wildlife, so long as they are motivated to do so. In the right circumstances, a virtuous cycle, whereby local producers have a direct interest in protecting wildlife (because they are benefiting from its legal trade) is the best - and sometimes the only - long-term solution to the problem of sustainability. Q. Which of the following is least true according to the passage?

CITES provides a viable framework for reducing poverty while conserving nature.

CITES ensures that no illegal trade activities are carried out.

CITES oversees the sustainable python trade in Southeast Asia.

CITES helps in the upliftment of the Andes communities.

Poor and rural people around the world rely on plants and animals for shelter, food, income, and medicine. In fact, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal on sustainable ecosystems acknowledges many developing societies’ close relationship with nature when it calls for increased “capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities.” But how is this to be achieved? The 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) provides a viable framework for reducing poverty while also conserving nature. It regulates the harvesting and exchange of more than 35,000 wildlife species across a range of locales. Nature has been described as the “GDP of the poor.” The CITES framework, combined with strong national conservation policies, can simultaneously protect wild species and benefit poor, rural, and indigenous people, by encouraging countries and communities to adopt sound environmental management plans. For example, under CITES, Andes communities shear the vicuna for its fine wool, which they sell to the luxury fashion industry in other parts of the world. Cameroonians collect African cherry bark for export to European pharmaceutical companies, and people on the Tibetan Plateau in Bhutan make a living selling caterpillar fungus to the traditional-medicine industry. However, outside of CITES, limited guidance is available to ensure that legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor. Sustainable trade often depends on poor and rural communities conserving their own resources at the local level. To see what that looks like, the International Trade Center (ITC) recently examined how people in Southeast Asia sustainably manage the CITES-listed python trade. In Vietnam, an estimated 1,000 households farm and trade pythons, and python harvesting in Malaysia provides incomes for low-skilled, low-income workers during periods when other employment opportunities are either out of season, or simply scarce because of larger economic factors. The biggest threats to the legal wildlife trade are poaching, smuggling, improper trade permitting, and animal abuse, all of which must be addressed by regulators and rural community stakeholders at the local level. Fortunately, rural communities are already in the best position to protect wildlife, so long as they are motivated to do so. In the right circumstances, a virtuous cycle, whereby local producers have a direct interest in protecting wildlife (because they are benefiting from its legal trade) is the best - and sometimes the only - long-term solution to the problem of sustainability. Q. What is the primary concern of the passage?

The need to protect wildlife while keeping the needs of indigenous people in mind.

Illegal wildlife trade should be monitored by rural community stakeholders at the local level.

CITES should be adapted on a global level to promote legal wildlife trade.

So long as local communities benefit from wildlife trade activities, protecting wildlife should be easy.

Poor and rural people around the world rely on plants and animals for shelter, food, income, and medicine. In fact, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal on sustainable ecosystems acknowledges many developing societies’ close relationship with nature when it calls for increased “capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities.” But how is this to be achieved? The 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) provides a viable framework for reducing poverty while also conserving nature. It regulates the harvesting and exchange of more than 35,000 wildlife species across a range of locales. Nature has been described as the “GDP of the poor.” The CITES framework, combined with strong national conservation policies, can simultaneously protect wild species and benefit poor, rural, and indigenous people, by encouraging countries and communities to adopt sound environmental management plans. For example, under CITES, Andes communities shear the vicuna for its fine wool, which they sell to the luxury fashion industry in other parts of the world. Cameroonians collect African cherry bark for export to European pharmaceutical companies, and people on the Tibetan Plateau in Bhutan make a living selling caterpillar fungus to the traditional-medicine industry. However, outside of CITES, limited guidance is available to ensure that legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor. Sustainable trade often depends on poor and rural communities conserving their own resources at the local level. To see what that looks like, the International Trade Center (ITC) recently examined how people in Southeast Asia sustainably manage the CITES-listed python trade. In Vietnam, an estimated 1,000 households farm and trade pythons, and python harvesting in Malaysia provides incomes for low-skilled, low-income workers during periods when other employment opportunities are either out of season, or simply scarce because of larger economic factors. The biggest threats to the legal wildlife trade are poaching, smuggling, improper trade permitting, and animal abuse, all of which must be addressed by regulators and rural community stakeholders at the local level. Fortunately, rural communities are already in the best position to protect wildlife, so long as they are motivated to do so. In the right circumstances, a virtuous cycle, whereby local producers have a direct interest in protecting wildlife (because they are benefiting from its legal trade) is the best - and sometimes the only - long-term solution to the problem of sustainability. Q. What does sustainable trade rely on?

The poor and rural communities being vigilant in the wake of increasing illegal wildlife trade.

Providing direct income to the existing rural communities

Long-term solution to the problem of sustainability.

The ability of the poor communities to judiciously use their local resources

Poor and rural people around the world rely on plants and animals for shelter, food, income, and medicine. In fact, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal on sustainable ecosystems acknowledges many developing societies’ close relationship with nature when it calls for increased “capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities.” But how is this to be achieved? The 1975 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) provides a viable framework for reducing poverty while also conserving nature. It regulates the harvesting and exchange of more than 35,000 wildlife species across a range of locales. Nature has been described as the “GDP of the poor.” The CITES framework, combined with strong national conservation policies, can simultaneously protect wild species and benefit poor, rural, and indigenous people, by encouraging countries and communities to adopt sound environmental management plans. For example, under CITES, Andes communities shear the vicuna for its fine wool, which they sell to the luxury fashion industry in other parts of the world. Cameroonians collect African cherry bark for export to European pharmaceutical companies, and people on the Tibetan Plateau in Bhutan make a living selling caterpillar fungus to the traditional-medicine industry. However, outside of CITES, limited guidance is available to ensure that legal trade is sustainable and beneficial to the poor. Sustainable trade often depends on poor and rural communities conserving their own resources at the local level. To see what that looks like, the International Trade Center (ITC) recently examined how people in Southeast Asia sustainably manage the CITES-listed python trade. In Vietnam, an estimated 1,000 households farm and trade pythons, and python harvesting in Malaysia provides incomes for low-skilled, low-income workers during periods when other employment opportunities are either out of season, or simply scarce because of larger economic factors. The biggest threats to the legal wildlife trade are poaching, smuggling, improper trade permitting, and animal abuse, all of which must be addressed by regulators and rural community stakeholders at the local level. Fortunately, rural communities are already in the best position to protect wildlife, so long as they are motivated to do so. In the right circumstances, a virtuous cycle, whereby local producers have a direct interest in protecting wildlife (because they are benefiting from its legal trade) is the best - and sometimes the only - long-term solution to the problem of sustainability. Q. Which of the following is an example of “virtuous cycle”?

Collecting honey from wild bee colonies

Poaching rhinos for their horns

Group Question A passage is followed by questions pertaining to the passage. Read the passage and answer the questions. Choose the most appropriate answer. The magnetosphere of Jupiter is the cavity created in the solar wind by the planet's magnetic field. Extending up to seven million kilometers in the Sun's direction and almost to the orbit of Saturn in the opposite direction, Jupiter's magnetosphere is the largest and most powerful of any planetary magnetosphere in the Solar System, and by volume the largest known continuous structure in the Solar System after the heliosphere. Wider and flatter than the Earth's magnetosphere, Jupiter's is stronger by an order of magnitude, while its magnetic moment is roughly 18,000 times larger. The existence of Jupiter's magnetic field was first inferred from observations of radio emissions at the end of 1950s and was directly observed by the Pioneer 10 spacecraft in 1973. Jupiter's internal magnetic field is generated by electrical currents flowing in the planet's outer core, which is composed of metallic hydrogen. Volcanic eruptions on Jupiter's moon Io eject large amounts of sulfur dioxide gas into space, forming a large torus around the planet. Jupiter's magnetic field forces the torus to rotate with the same angular velocity and direction as the planet. The torus in turn loads the magnetic field with plasma, in the process stretching it into a pancake-like structure called a magnetodisk. In effect, Jupiter's magnetosphere is shaped by Io's plasma and its own rotation, rather than by the solar wind like Earth's magnetosphere. Strong currents flowing in the magnetosphere generate permanent aurorae around the planet's poles and intense variable radio emissions, which means that Jupiter can be thought of as a very weak radio pulsar. Jupiter's aurorae have been observed in almost all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum including infrared, visible, ultraviolet and soft X-rays. The action of the magnetosphere traps and accelerates particles, producing intense belts of radiation similar to Earth's Van Allen belts, but thousands of times stronger. The interaction of energetic particles with the surfaces of Jupiter's largest moons markedly affects their chemical and physical properties. Those same particles also affect and are affected by the motions of the particles within Jupiter's tenuous planetary ring system. Radiation belts present a significant hazard for spacecraft and potentially to humans. Jupiter's magnetosphere is a complex structure comprising a bow shock, magnetopause, magnetotail, magnetodisk and other components. The magnetic field around Jupiter emanates from a number of different sources, including fluid circulation at the planet's core (the internal field), electrical currents in the plasma surrounding Jupiter and the currents flowing at the boundary of the planet's magnetosphere. The magnetosphere is embedded within the plasma of the solar wind, which carries the interplanetary magnetic field. Jupiter's internal magnetic field prevents the solar wind, a stream of ionized particles emitted by the Sun, from interacting directly with its atmosphere, and instead diverts it away from the planet, effectively creating its own region, called a magnetosphere, composed of a plasma different from that of the solar wind. The Jovian (i.e. pertaining to Jupiter) magnetosphere is so large that the Sun and its visible corona would fit inside it with room to spare. If one could see it from Earth, it would appear five times larger than the full moon in the sky despite being nearly 1700 times farther away. Q. Which of the following statements isn’t false?

Saturn’s orbit touches Jupiter’s magnetosphere on both sides.

Radio emissions discovered Jupiter’s magnetosphere.

Earth’s magnetosphere is narrower than Jupiter’s and is shaped by the solar wind.

Jupiter’s torus fills the magnetic field with plasma which is same as the solar wind.

The magnetosphere of Jupiter is the cavity created in the solar wind by the planet's magnetic field. Extending up to seven million kilometers in the Sun's direction and almost to the orbit of Saturn in the opposite direction, Jupiter's magnetosphere is the largest and most powerful of any planetary magnetosphere in the Solar System, and by volume the largest known continuous structure in the Solar System after the heliosphere. Wider and flatter than the Earth's magnetosphere, Jupiter's is stronger by an order of magnitude, while its magnetic moment is roughly 18,000 times larger. The existence of Jupiter's magnetic field was first inferred from observations of radio emissions at the end of 1950s and was directly observed by the Pioneer 10 spacecraft in 1973. Jupiter's internal magnetic field is generated by electrical currents flowing in the planet's outer core, which is composed of metallic hydrogen. Volcanic eruptions on Jupiter's moon Io eject large amounts of sulfur dioxide gas into space, forming a large torus around the planet. Jupiter's magnetic field forces the torus to rotate with the same angular velocity and direction as the planet. The torus in turn loads the magnetic field with plasma, in the process stretching it into a pancake-like structure called a magnetodisk. In effect, Jupiter's magnetosphere is shaped by Io's plasma and its own rotation, rather than by the solar wind like Earth's magnetosphere. Strong currents flowing in the magnetosphere generate permanent aurorae around the planet's poles and intense variable radio emissions, which means that Jupiter can be thought of as a very weak radio pulsar. Jupiter's aurorae have been observed in almost all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum including infrared, visible, ultraviolet and soft X-rays. The action of the magnetosphere traps and accelerates particles, producing intense belts of radiation similar to Earth's Van Allen belts, but thousands of times stronger. The interaction of energetic particles with the surfaces of Jupiter's largest moons markedly affects their chemical and physical properties. Those same particles also affect and are affected by the motions of the particles within Jupiter's tenuous planetary ring system. Radiation belts present a significant hazard for spacecraft and potentially to humans. Jupiter's magnetosphere is a complex structure comprising a bow shock, magnetopause, magnetotail, magnetodisk and other components. The magnetic field around Jupiter emanates from a number of different sources, including fluid circulation at the planet's core (the internal field), electrical currents in the plasma surrounding Jupiter and the currents flowing at the boundary of the planet's magnetosphere. The magnetosphere is embedded within the plasma of the solar wind, which carries the interplanetary magnetic field. Jupiter's internal magnetic field prevents the solar wind, a stream of ionized particles emitted by the Sun, from interacting directly with its atmosphere, and instead diverts it away from the planet, effectively creating its own region, called a magnetosphere, composed of a plasma different from that of the solar wind. The Jovian (i.e. pertaining to Jupiter) magnetosphere is so large that the Sun and its visible corona would fit inside it with room to spare. If one could see it from Earth, it would appear five times larger than the full moon in the sky despite being nearly 1700 times farther away. Q. Which of the following is not a characteristic of the torus?

It is made of sulphur dioxide gas from Io.

The torus rotates with the same angular velocity as Jupiter.

It is responsible for the pancake-like shape of the magnetic field.

Volcanic eruptions on the surface of Io cause the torus to expand.

The magnetosphere of Jupiter is the cavity created in the solar wind by the planet's magnetic field. Extending up to seven million kilometers in the Sun's direction and almost to the orbit of Saturn in the opposite direction, Jupiter's magnetosphere is the largest and most powerful of any planetary magnetosphere in the Solar System, and by volume the largest known continuous structure in the Solar System after the heliosphere. Wider and flatter than the Earth's magnetosphere, Jupiter's is stronger by an order of magnitude, while its magnetic moment is roughly 18,000 times larger. The existence of Jupiter's magnetic field was first inferred from observations of radio emissions at the end of 1950s and was directly observed by the Pioneer 10 spacecraft in 1973. Jupiter's internal magnetic field is generated by electrical currents flowing in the planet's outer core, which is composed of metallic hydrogen. Volcanic eruptions on Jupiter's moon Io eject large amounts of sulfur dioxide gas into space, forming a large torus around the planet. Jupiter's magnetic field forces the torus to rotate with the same angular velocity and direction as the planet. The torus in turn loads the magnetic field with plasma, in the process stretching it into a pancake-like structure called a magnetodisk. In effect, Jupiter's magnetosphere is shaped by Io's plasma and its own rotation, rather than by the solar wind like Earth's magnetosphere. Strong currents flowing in the magnetosphere generate permanent aurorae around the planet's poles and intense variable radio emissions, which means that Jupiter can be thought of as a very weak radio pulsar. Jupiter's aurorae have been observed in almost all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum including infrared, visible, ultraviolet and soft X-rays. The action of the magnetosphere traps and accelerates particles, producing intense belts of radiation similar to Earth's Van Allen belts, but thousands of times stronger. The interaction of energetic particles with the surfaces of Jupiter's largest moons markedly affects their chemical and physical properties. Those same particles also affect and are affected by the motions of the particles within Jupiter's tenuous planetary ring system. Radiation belts present a significant hazard for spacecraft and potentially to humans. Jupiter's magnetosphere is a complex structure comprising a bow shock, magnetopause, magnetotail, magnetodisk and other components. The magnetic field around Jupiter emanates from a number of different sources, including fluid circulation at the planet's core (the internal field), electrical currents in the plasma surrounding Jupiter and the currents flowing at the boundary of the planet's magnetosphere. The magnetosphere is embedded within the plasma of the solar wind, which carries the interplanetary magnetic field. Jupiter's internal magnetic field prevents the solar wind, a stream of ionized particles emitted by the Sun, from interacting directly with its atmosphere, and instead diverts it away from the planet, effectively creating its own region, called a magnetosphere, composed of a plasma different from that of the solar wind. The Jovian (i.e. pertaining to Jupiter) magnetosphere is so large that the Sun and its visible corona would fit inside it with room to spare. If one could see it from Earth, it would appear five times larger than the full moon in the sky despite being nearly 1700 times farther away. Q. Why is it hard for a manned spacecraft to land on Jupiter?

The constant aurorae affect visibility and navigation.

The radiation belts around Jupiter are a thousand times stronger than that of the Earth.

The plasma particles in its atmosphere are not conducive to human life.

The size of the magnetosphere makes it hard for the spacecraft to ' navigate.

The magnetosphere of Jupiter is the cavity created in the solar wind by the planet's magnetic field. Extending up to seven million kilometers in the Sun's direction and almost to the orbit of Saturn in the opposite direction, Jupiter's magnetosphere is the largest and most powerful of any planetary magnetosphere in the Solar System, and by volume the largest known continuous structure in the Solar System after the heliosphere. Wider and flatter than the Earth's magnetosphere, Jupiter's is stronger by an order of magnitude, while its magnetic moment is roughly 18,000 times larger. The existence of Jupiter's magnetic field was first inferred from observations of radio emissions at the end of 1950s and was directly observed by the Pioneer 10 spacecraft in 1973. Jupiter's internal magnetic field is generated by electrical currents flowing in the planet's outer core, which is composed of metallic hydrogen. Volcanic eruptions on Jupiter's moon Io eject large amounts of sulfur dioxide gas into space, forming a large torus around the planet. Jupiter's magnetic field forces the torus to rotate with the same angular velocity and direction as the planet. The torus in turn loads the magnetic field with plasma, in the process stretching it into a pancake-like structure called a magnetodisk. In effect, Jupiter's magnetosphere is shaped by Io's plasma and its own rotation, rather than by the solar wind like Earth's magnetosphere. Strong currents flowing in the magnetosphere generate permanent aurorae around the planet's poles and intense variable radio emissions, which means that Jupiter can be thought of as a very weak radio pulsar. Jupiter's aurorae have been observed in almost all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum including infrared, visible, ultraviolet and soft X-rays. The action of the magnetosphere traps and accelerates particles, producing intense belts of radiation similar to Earth's Van Allen belts, but thousands of times stronger. The interaction of energetic particles with the surfaces of Jupiter's largest moons markedly affects their chemical and physical properties. Those same particles also affect and are affected by the motions of the particles within Jupiter's tenuous planetary ring system. Radiation belts present a significant hazard for spacecraft and potentially to humans. Jupiter's magnetosphere is a complex structure comprising a bow shock, magnetopause, magnetotail, magnetodisk and other components. The magnetic field around Jupiter emanates from a number of different sources, including fluid circulation at the planet's core (the internal field), electrical currents in the plasma surrounding Jupiter and the currents flowing at the boundary of the planet's magnetosphere. The magnetosphere is embedded within the plasma of the solar wind, which carries the interplanetary magnetic field. Jupiter's internal magnetic field prevents the solar wind, a stream of ionized particles emitted by the Sun, from interacting directly with its atmosphere, and instead diverts it away from the planet, effectively creating its own region, called a magnetosphere, composed of a plasma different from that of the solar wind. The Jovian (i.e. pertaining to Jupiter) magnetosphere is so large that the Sun and its visible corona would fit inside it with room to spare. If one could see it from Earth, it would appear five times larger than the full moon in the sky despite being nearly 1700 times farther away. Q. What exactly does the word “torus” mean?

A dense region composed of gases.

A doughnut-shaped surface generated by the revolution of a circle.

The magnetosphere of Jupiter is the cavity created in the solar wind by the planet's magnetic field. Extending up to seven million kilometers in the Sun's direction and almost to the orbit of Saturn in the opposite direction, Jupiter's magnetosphere is the largest and most powerful of any planetary magnetosphere in the Solar System, and by volume the largest known continuous structure in the Solar System after the heliosphere. Wider and flatter than the Earth's magnetosphere, Jupiter's is stronger by an order of magnitude, while its magnetic moment is roughly 18,000 times larger. The existence of Jupiter's magnetic field was first inferred from observations of radio emissions at the end of 1950s and was directly observed by the Pioneer 10 spacecraft in 1973. Jupiter's internal magnetic field is generated by electrical currents flowing in the planet's outer core, which is composed of metallic hydrogen. Volcanic eruptions on Jupiter's moon Io eject large amounts of sulfur dioxide gas into space, forming a large torus around the planet. Jupiter's magnetic field forces the torus to rotate with the same angular velocity and direction as the planet. The torus in turn loads the magnetic field with plasma, in the process stretching it into a pancake-like structure called a magnetodisk. In effect, Jupiter's magnetosphere is shaped by Io's plasma and its own rotation, rather than by the solar wind like Earth's magnetosphere. Strong currents flowing in the magnetosphere generate permanent aurorae around the planet's poles and intense variable radio emissions, which means that Jupiter can be thought of as a very weak radio pulsar. Jupiter's aurorae have been observed in almost all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum including infrared, visible, ultraviolet and soft X-rays. The action of the magnetosphere traps and accelerates particles, producing intense belts of radiation similar to Earth's Van Allen belts, but thousands of times stronger. The interaction of energetic particles with the surfaces of Jupiter's largest moons markedly affects their chemical and physical properties. Those same particles also affect and are affected by the motions of the particles within Jupiter's tenuous planetary ring system. Radiation belts present a significant hazard for spacecraft and potentially to humans. Jupiter's magnetosphere is a complex structure comprising a bow shock, magnetopause, magnetotail, magnetodisk and other components. The magnetic field around Jupiter emanates from a number of different sources, including fluid circulation at the planet's core (the internal field), electrical currents in the plasma surrounding Jupiter and the currents flowing at the boundary of the planet's magnetosphere. The magnetosphere is embedded within the plasma of the solar wind, which carries the interplanetary magnetic field. Jupiter's internal magnetic field prevents the solar wind, a stream of ionized particles emitted by the Sun, from interacting directly with its atmosphere, and instead diverts it away from the planet, effectively creating its own region, called a magnetosphere, composed of a plasma different from that of the solar wind. The Jovian (i.e. pertaining to Jupiter) magnetosphere is so large that the Sun and its visible corona would fit inside it with room to spare. If one could see it from Earth, it would appear five times larger than the full moon in the sky despite being nearly 1700 times farther away. Q. According to the passage, what can we conclude about electrical currents?

Electrical currents are responsible for the generation of the magnetosphere.

Motions of the particles within Jupiter's tenuous planetary ring system affect electrical currents.

Electrical currents flow in the outer core of the planet, which is composed of metallic hydrogen.

Electric currents separate the planet’s magnetosphere and its magnetic ' field.

The magnetosphere of Jupiter is the cavity created in the solar wind by the planet's magnetic field. Extending up to seven million kilometers in the Sun's direction and almost to the orbit of Saturn in the opposite direction, Jupiter's magnetosphere is the largest and most powerful of any planetary magnetosphere in the Solar System, and by volume the largest known continuous structure in the Solar System after the heliosphere. Wider and flatter than the Earth's magnetosphere, Jupiter's is stronger by an order of magnitude, while its magnetic moment is roughly 18,000 times larger. The existence of Jupiter's magnetic field was first inferred from observations of radio emissions at the end of 1950s and was directly observed by the Pioneer 10 spacecraft in 1973. Jupiter's internal magnetic field is generated by electrical currents flowing in the planet's outer core, which is composed of metallic hydrogen. Volcanic eruptions on Jupiter's moon Io eject large amounts of sulfur dioxide gas into space, forming a large torus around the planet. Jupiter's magnetic field forces the torus to rotate with the same angular velocity and direction as the planet. The torus in turn loads the magnetic field with plasma, in the process stretching it into a pancake-like structure called a magnetodisk. In effect, Jupiter's magnetosphere is shaped by Io's plasma and its own rotation, rather than by the solar wind like Earth's magnetosphere. Strong currents flowing in the magnetosphere generate permanent aurorae around the planet's poles and intense variable radio emissions, which means that Jupiter can be thought of as a very weak radio pulsar. Jupiter's aurorae have been observed in almost all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum including infrared, visible, ultraviolet and soft X-rays. The action of the magnetosphere traps and accelerates particles, producing intense belts of radiation similar to Earth's Van Allen belts, but thousands of times stronger. The interaction of energetic particles with the surfaces of Jupiter's largest moons markedly affects their chemical and physical properties. Those same particles also affect and are affected by the motions of the particles within Jupiter's tenuous planetary ring system. Radiation belts present a significant hazard for spacecraft and potentially to humans. Jupiter's magnetosphere is a complex structure comprising a bow shock, magnetopause, magnetotail, magnetodisk and other components. The magnetic field around Jupiter emanates from a number of different sources, including fluid circulation at the planet's core (the internal field), electrical currents in the plasma surrounding Jupiter and the currents flowing at the boundary of the planet's magnetosphere. The magnetosphere is embedded within the plasma of the solar wind, which carries the interplanetary magnetic field. Jupiter's internal magnetic field prevents the solar wind, a stream of ionized particles emitted by the Sun, from interacting directly with its atmosphere, and instead diverts it away from the planet, effectively creating its own region, called a magnetosphere, composed of a plasma different from that of the solar wind. The Jovian (i.e. pertaining to Jupiter) magnetosphere is so large that the Sun and its visible corona would fit inside it with room to spare. If one could see it from Earth, it would appear five times larger than the full moon in the sky despite being nearly 1700 times farther away. Q. Which of the following is not true about magnetosphere of Jupiter?

There is no magnetosphere as strong as Jupiter's in the Solar System.

Unlike Jupiter's, Earth's magnetosphere is shaped by solar wind.

Jupiter's magnetosphere was discovered at the end of 1950s.

Jupiter's magnetosphere is wider and flatter than Earth's.

Five sentences are given below labeled (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). Of these, four sentences need to be arranged in a logical order to form a coherent paragraph/passage. Pick out the sentence that does not fit the sequence.

An essential element in ensuring that this corporate public policy process is effective is having both policy experts and political experts inside the corporation.

The CEO makes over-arching strategic decisions on priority policy issues and then on resource allocation — both on industry-specific issues in the divisions and on company-wide issues at headquarters

Too few businesses have sought to make a systemic approach to public policy an important dimension of their global posture.

In routine strategic reviews, business and senior staff leaders should present a prioritized agenda of offensive and defensive policies relating to their line of business or area of expertise in nations all across the globe.

To underscore their importance, the CEO and business leaders should hold regular reviews on public policy to oversee whether milestones are being met for formulation, enactment, and implementation.

Four sentences are given below labeled (1), (2), (3) and (4). Of these, three sentences need to be arranged in a logical order to form a coherent paragraph/passage. Pick out the sentence that does not fit the sequence.

The senseless loss of 109 lives and grave injury to nearly five times as many at the 500-year-old Devi temple at Puttingal in Kollam, Kerala, in the early hours of Sunday was an avoidable tragedy.

Beyond the deaths, and destruction of property, it provides a glimpse into a far more dangerous and common occurrence: the flagrant flouting of norms, the utter disregard for the safety and sanctity of human life by the powerful, and the willingness of politicians to subvert norms if it yields electoral gains.

The world has started to believe that Indian citizens and the government do not give much importance to safe practices.

In its twilight hours, Kerala’s UDF government should do right by the people, and prosecute those responsible, no matter how powerful, for having killed and maimed so many.

The following question consists of a certain number of sentences. Some sentences are grammatically incorrect or inappropriate. Type in the number of sentences that are grammatically incorrect.

Accustomed as we are to think of China as greatest peace-loving nation on earth, we are in some danger of forgetting her experience of war.

Her long military annals stretch back to point at which they are lost in the mists of time.

The perpetual collisions of the ancient feudal states accompanied the overthrow of many dynasties.

No less remarkable is the succession of illustrious captains to who China can point with pride.

The following question consists of a certain number of sentences. Some sentences are grammatically incorrect or inappropriate. Identify the total number of sentences that are grammatically correct and appropriate.

Most of the military disasters have been caused by the home government.

Napoleon undoubtedly owed much of his extraordinary success to his goodwill.

Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know you, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained one will also suffer a defeat.

A base word has been used in the options given below. Choose the option in which the usage of the word is incorrect or inappropriate. Bowl

His family was bowled over by the news.

Australia was bowled out for 133 in the T20 world cup final against England.

The recipe requires you to mix all ingredients in a shallow bowl.

He ended the contest with a quickly bowled left hook.

CAT Practice Test - 29 Free MCQ Practice Test with Solutions

EduRev

All Courses

Open App

Important Questions for CAT Practice Test - 29

Find all the important questions for CAT Practice Test - 29 at EduRev.Get fully prepared for CAT Practice Test - 29 with EduRev's comprehensive question bank and test resources. Our platform offers a diverse range of question papers covering various topics within the CAT Practice Test - 29 syllabus. Whether you need to review specific subjects or assess your overall readiness, EduRev has you covered. The questions are designed to challenge you and help you gain confidence in tackling the actual exam. Maximize your chances of success by utilizing EduRev's extensive collection of CAT Practice Test - 29 resources.

CAT Practice Test - 29 MCQs with Answers

Prepare for the CAT Practice Test - 29 within the CAT exam with comprehensive MCQs and answers at EduRev. Our platform offers a wide range of practice papers, question papers, and mock tests to familiarize you with the exam pattern and syllabus. Access the best books, study materials, and notes curated by toppers to enhance your preparation. Stay updated with the exam date and receive expert preparation tips and paper analysis. Visit EduRev's official website today and access a wealth of videos and coaching resources to excel in your exam.

Online Tests for CAT Practice Test - 29

Practice with a wide array of question papers that follow the exam pattern and syllabus. Our platform offers a user-friendly interface, allowing you to track your progress and identify areas for improvement. Access detailed solutions and explanations for each test to enhance your understanding of concepts. With EduRev's Online Tests, you can build confidence, boost your performance, and ace CAT Practice Test - 29 with ease. Join thousands of successful students who have benefited from our trusted online resources.

Education Revolution