The purpose of education is to make the student an expert in his
subject. This must be clearly understood, and mere mudding through lessons and
lectures and books and passing examinations are relegated to secondary
importance as means to the end-which is excellence in the field chosen.
But there are so many fields, and no man can become an expert in all the
fields it is necessary to decide which fields are important ones that a man
should know well.
It is clear that one’s own work is the most important. This has been realized
and modern civilization has accordingly provided vocational education. It is
now possible to acquire high professional skill in the various fields,
medicine, engineering production, commerce and so on-but with good and bad
mixed together, and no standard for guidance.
The purpose of education is to make the student:
Recent advances in science and technology have made it
possible for geneticists to find out abnormalities in the unborn foetus and
take remedial action to rectify some defects which would otherwise prove to be
fatal to the child. Though genetic engineering is still at its infancy,
scientists can now predict with greater accuracy a genetic disorder. It is not
yet an exact science since they are not in a position to predict when exactly a
genetic disorder will set in. While they have not yet been able to change the
genetic order of the gene in germs, they are optimistic and are holding out
that in the near future they might be successful in achieving this feat. They
have, however, acquired the ability in manipulating tissue cells. However,
genetic mis-information can sometimes be damaging for it may adversely affect
people psychologically. Genetic information may lead to a tendency to brand
some people as inferiors. Genetic information can therefore be abused and its
application in deciding the sex of the foetus and its subsequent abortion is
now hotly debated on ethical lines. But on this issue geneticists cannot be
squarely blamed though this charge has often been leveled at them. It is mainly
a societal problem. At present genetic engineering is a costly process of
detecting disorders but scientists hope to reduce the costs when technology
becomes more advanced. This is why much progress in this area has been possible
in scientifically advanced and rich countries like the U.S.A., U.K. and Japan.
It remains to be seen if in the future this science will lead to the
development of a race of supermen or will be able to obliterate disease from
this world.
What is the tone of the
author in the last sentence of the passage?
At the time Jane Austen’s novels
were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any
academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain
religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so-called
immoral characters so interesting that young readers would identify with them;
these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even
Coleridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when the asserted
that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s powers.”
These attitudes towards novels help
explain why Austen received little attention from early nineteenth-century
literary cities. (In any case a novelist published anonymously, as Austen was,
would not be likely to receive much critical attention.) The literary response
that was accorded to her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth-century
criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience,”
for example. Scott made an insightful remark about the merits of Austen’s
fiction.
Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to
the reader an accurate and exact picture of ordinary everyday people and
places, reminiscent of seventeenth-century Flemish painting.” Scott did not use
the word ‘realism’, but he undoubtedly used a standard of realistic probability
in judging novels. The critic Whately did not use the word ‘realism’, either,
but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities
for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s ‘realistic method’ her
characters, wrote Whately, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are
ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that we feel an interest in their fate as
if it were our own.” Moral instruction, explained Whately, is more likely to be
effective when conveyed through recongnizably human and interesting characters
than when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whitely especially praised Austen’s
ability to create character who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and
virtue, as in life they are always mingled. “Whitely concluded his remarks by
comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Dickens’, starting his preference
for Austen’s.
Yet, the response of
nineteenth-century literary critics to Austen was not always so laudatory, and
often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century literary critics. An
example of such a response was Lewes complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of
subject and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added
that, nonetheless her focus was too often only upon the unlofty and the
commonplace. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain
about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper middle class.)
In any case having being rescued by literary critics from neglect and indeed
gradually lionized by them, Austen steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth
century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.
The passage supplies information to
suggest that the religious and political groups (mentioned in the third
sentence) and Whately might have agreed that a novel.
It is easy to make delicious-looking hamburger at home. But would this
hamburger still look delicious after it sat on your kitchen table under very
bright lights for six or seven hours? if someone took a picture or made a video
of this hamburger after the seventh hour, would anyone want to eat it? More
importantly, do you think you could get millions of people to pay money for
this hamburger? These are the questions that fast food companies worry about
when they produce commercials or print ads for their products. Video and photo
shoots often last many hours. The lights that the photographers use can be
extremely hot. These conditions can cause the food to look quite unappealing to
potential consumers. Because of this, the menu items that you see in fast food
commercials are probably not actually edible.Let's use the hamburger as an
example. The first step towards building the commercial hamburger is the bun.
The food stylist--a person employed by the company to make sure the products
look perfect--sorts through hundreds of buns until he or she finds one with no
wrinkles. Next, the stylist carefully rearranges the sesame seeds on the bun
using glue and tweezers for maximum visual appeal. The bun is then sprayed with
a waterproofing solution so that it will no get soggy from contact with other
ingredients, the lights, or the humidity in the room.Next, the food stylist
shapes a meat patty into a perfect circle. Only the outside of the meat gets
cooked-the inside is left raw so that the meat remains moist. The food stylist
then paints the outside of the meat patty with a mixture of oil, molasses, and
brown food coloring. Grill marks are either painted on or seared into the meat
using hot metal skewers.Finally, the food stylist searches through dozens of
tomatoes and heads of lettuce to find the best-looking produce.One leaf of the
crispest lettuce and one center slice of the reddest tomato are selected and
then sprayed with glycerin to keep them looking fresh. So the next time you see
a delectable hamburger in a fast food commercial, remember: you are actually
looking at glue, paint, raw meat , and glycerin. Are you still hungry?
Question:
According to the passage, fast food companies use things like glue and glycerin on hamburgers that appear in advertisements because
I. no one actually has to eat the food used in the commercial
II.it is important that people who see advertisement would pay for the food being advertised
III.filming a commercial or a print ad can take a very long time
On January 3, 1961, nine days after
Christmas, Richard Legg, John Byrnes, and Richard McKinley were killed in a
remote desert in eastern Idaho. Their deaths occurred when a nuclear reactor
exploded at a top-secret base in the National Reactor Testing Station (NRTS).
Official reports state that the explosion and subsequent reactor meltdown
resulted from the improper retraction of the control rod. When questioned about
the events that occurred there, officials were very reticent. The whole affair,
in fact, was discussed much, and seemed to disappear with time.
In order to grasp the mysterious
nature of the NRTS catastrophe, it help to know a bit about how nuclear
reactors work. After all, the generation of nuclear energy may strike many as
an esoteric process. However, given its relative simplicity, the way in which
the NRTS reactor functions is widely comprehensible. In this particular kind of
reactor, a cluster of nine-ton uranium fuel rods are positioned lengthwise
around a central control rod. The reaction begins with the slow removal of the
control ro, which starts a controlled nuclear reaction and begins to heat the
water in the reactor. This heat generates steam, which builds pressure inside
the tank. As pressure builds, the steam looks for a place to escape. The only
place this steam is able to escape is through the turbine. As it passes through
the turbine on its way out of the tank, it turns the giant fan blades and
produces energy.
On the morning of January 3, after
the machine had been shut down for the holidays, the three men arrived at the
station to restart the reactor. The control rod needed to be pulled out only
four inches to be reconnected to the automated driver. However, records
indicate that Byrnes yanked it out 23 inches, over five times the distance
necessary. In milliseconds the reactor exploded. Legg was impaled on the
ceiling; he would be discovered last. It took one week and a lead-shielded
crane to remove his body. Even in full protective gear, workers were only able
to work a minute at a time. The three men are buried in lead-lined coffins
under concrete in New York, Michigan, and Arlington Cemetery, Virginia.
The investigation took nearly two
years to complete. Did Byrnes have a dark motive? Or was it simply an accident?
Did he know how precarious the procedure was? Other operators were questioned
as to whether they knew the consequences of pulling the control rod out so far.
They responded “Of course! We often talked about what we would do if we were at
a radar station and the Russians came.
“We’d yank it out.”
Official reports are oddly
ambiguous, but what they do not explain, gossip does. Rumors had it that there
was tension between the men because Byrnes suspected the other two of being
involved with his young wife. There is little doubt than he, like the other
operators, knew exactly what would happen when he yanked the control rod.
Based on information in the final
paragraph, which of the following statements would the author likely agree with?
At the time Jane Austen’s novels
were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any
academic curriculum. In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain
religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so-called
immoral characters so interesting that young readers would identify with them;
these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use. Even
Coleridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when the asserted
that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s powers.”
These attitudes towards novels help
explain why Austen received little attention from early nineteenth-century
literary cities. (In any case a novelist published anonymously, as Austen was,
would not be likely to receive much critical attention.) The literary response
that was accorded to her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth-century
criticism. In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience,”
for example. Scott made an insightful remark about the merits of Austen’s
fiction.
Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to
the reader an accurate and exact picture of ordinary everyday people and
places, reminiscent of seventeenth-century Flemish painting.” Scott did not use
the word ‘realism’, but he undoubtedly used a standard of realistic probability
in judging novels. The critic Whately did not use the word ‘realism’, either,
but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities
for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s ‘realistic method’ her
characters, wrote Whately, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are
ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that we feel an interest in their fate as
if it were our own.” Moral instruction, explained Whately, is more likely to be
effective when conveyed through recongnizably human and interesting characters
than when imparted by a sermonizing narrator. Whitely especially praised Austen’s
ability to create character who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and
virtue, as in life they are always mingled. “Whitely concluded his remarks by
comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Dickens’, starting his preference
for Austen’s.
Yet, the response of
nineteenth-century literary critics to Austen was not always so laudatory, and
often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century literary critics. An
example of such a response was Lewes complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of
subject and characters was too narrow. Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added
that, nonetheless her focus was too often only upon the unlofty and the
commonplace. (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain
about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper middle class.)
In any case having being rescued by literary critics from neglect and indeed
gradually lionized by them, Austen steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth
century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.
The author mentions that English
literature “was nor part of any academic curriculum” in the early nineteenth
century in order to
The history of the modern world is a
record of highly varied activity, of incessant change, and of astonishing
achievement. The lives of men have, during the last few centuries, increasingly
diversified, their powers have greatly multiplied, their powers have greatly
multiplied, their horizon been enormously enlarged. New interests have arisen
in rich profusion to absorb attention and to provoke exertion. New aspirations
and new emotions have come to move the soul of men. Amid all the bewildering phenomena,
interest, in particular, has stood out in clear and growing pre-eminence, has expressed
itself in a multitude of ways and with an emphasis more and more pronounced,
namely, the determination of the race to gain a larger measure of freedom than
it has ever known before, freedom in the life of the intellect and spirit,
freedom in the realm of government and law, freedom in the sphere of economic
and social relationship. A passion that has prevailed so widely, that has transformed
the world so greatly, and is still transforming it, is one that surely merits
study and abundantly rewards it, its operations constitute the very pith and
marrow of modem history.
Not that this passion was unknown to
the long ages that proceeded the modern periods. The ancient Hebrews, the
ancient Greeks and Roman blazed the was leaving behind them a precious heritage
of accomplishments and suggestions and the men who were responsible for the
Renaissance of the fifteenth century and the Reformation of the sixteen century
contributed their imperishable part to this slow and difficult emancipation of
the human race. But it is in modern times the pace and vigour, the scope and
sweep of this liberal movement have so increased unquestionably as to dominate
the age, particularly the last three centuries that have registered great
triumphs of spirit.
In what areas do you think have the
powers of men greatly multiplied during the last few centuries?
Paul’s wife knows Paul loves to read cookbooks. She decides to
get him one for his birthday. Paul tells her he will try to make a new recipe
for three days in a row. On Monday, Paul makes blueberry pancakes for
breakfast. He gets the blueberries from the farmers’ market. On Tuesday, Paul
makes beef soup for dinner. He puts in cubes of beef, carrots, and onions. The
recipe calls for cream, but Paul does not cream. He uses water instead. On Wednesday,
Paul makes a tomato salad with cucumbers and onions. He picks the cucumbers and
tomatoes from his garden. He likes this dish best. It was also the easiest for
him to make.
What does Paul get cucumbers and tomatoes?
On January 3, 1961, nine days after
Christmas, Richard Legg, John Byrnes, and Richard McKinley were killed in a
remote desert in eastern Idaho. Their deaths occurred when a nuclear reactor
exploded at a top-secret base in the National Reactor Testing Station (NRTS).
Official reports state that the explosion and subsequent reactor meltdown
resulted from the improper retraction of the control rod. When questioned about
the events that occurred there, officials were very reticent. The whole affair,
in fact, was discussed much, and seemed to disappear with time.
In order to grasp the mysterious
nature of the NRTS catastrophe, it help to know a bit about how nuclear
reactors work. After all, the generation of nuclear energy may strike many as
an esoteric process. However, given its relative simplicity, the way in which
the NRTS reactor functions is widely comprehensible. In this particular kind of
reactor, a cluster of nine-ton uranium fuel rods are positioned lengthwise
around a central control rod. The reaction begins with the slow removal of the
control ro, which starts a controlled nuclear reaction and begins to heat the
water in the reactor. This heat generates steam, which builds pressure inside
the tank. As pressure builds, the steam looks for a place to escape. The only
place this steam is able to escape is through the turbine. As it passes through
the turbine on its way out of the tank, it turns the giant fan blades and
produces energy.
On the morning of January 3, after
the machine had been shut down for the holidays, the three men arrived at the
station to restart the reactor. The control rod needed to be pulled out only
four inches to be reconnected to the automated driver. However, records
indicate that Byrnes yanked it out 23 inches, over five times the distance
necessary. In milliseconds the reactor exploded. Legg was impaled on the
ceiling; he would be discovered last. It took one week and a lead-shielded
crane to remove his body. Even in full protective gear, workers were only able
to work a minute at a time. The three men are buried in lead-lined coffins
under concrete in New York, Michigan, and Arlington Cemetery, Virginia.
The investigation took nearly two
years to complete. Did Byrnes have a dark motive? Or was it simply an accident?
Did he know how precarious the procedure was? Other operators were questioned
as to whether they knew the consequences of pulling the control rod out so far.
They responded “Of course! We often talked about what we would do if we were at
a radar station and the Russians came.
“We’d yank it out.”
Official reports are oddly
ambiguous, but what they do not explain, gossip does. Rumors had it that there
was tension between the men because Byrnes suspected the other two of being
involved with his young wife. There is little doubt than he, like the other
operators, knew exactly what would happen when he yanked the control rod.
As used in paragraph 5, which is
the best synonym for ambiguous?
