Reading Comprehension_passage On Historical Thought Process

9 Questions | Total Attempts: 32

SettingsSettingsSettings
Reading Comprehension_passage On Historical Thought Process - Quiz

Questions and Answers
  • 1. 
    Directions (Q. 1 – 9) : The passage given below is followed by a set of nine questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question. The distinctive quality of arguing can be seen in the following passage from Margaret Mead’s “Warfare: An Invention- Not a Biological Necessity”. This passage comes from the opening of a piece in which Mead attempts to prove that warfare is an invention and that as such it can be overcome by the development of new and better inventions which will render it obsolete. In taking this view of warfare,Mead realizes that she is at odds with many others "who think seriously about the problems of war and its possible prevention."Given the significant disagreements that exist between her view and the views of others, she is not free just to make a straightforward case for her own position on the matter. She must instead contend with her opponents, refuting their positions while also providing evidence in support of her own. She is, in short engaged in arguing. And the argumentative situation is immediately reflected in the title of her piece, in its opening question, and in the debate like structure of the paragraphs that follow. Accordingly, Mead begins by identifying the views of her opponents ("those who argue for the first view," "those who take the second view," and those who take "a compromise position between these two extremes"). Then she moves to counter statements intended to refute the opposition ("but I wish to urge another point of view"). This debate continues throughout the piece, as Mead acknowledges the most important counterattacks of her opponents and answers them with her own. So it is that argument puts ideas to the test by forcing them to stand up against opposing beliefs or theories. As this passage also reveals, argument naturally arises over significant issues or questions that are open to sharply differing points of view. Questions about the origin of war, for example, are of crucial interest to persons in a wide range of fields- not only to anthropologists such as Mead, but also to historians, philosophers, political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists, as well as to diplomats, politicians, and military leaders. And persons from these fields might well be inclined to approach the question from markedly different points of view that involve different assumptions as well as different bodies of knowledge and experience. Many psychologists, for example, do regard war as an inescapable consequence of man's “pugnacious instincts” while many political scientists, given their specialized pontiff` view, look upon war as "the inevitable concomitant of the development of the state." Mead, by contrast, given her anthropological orientation believes that the problem can be illuminated by examining a wide variety of cultures, especially those: in which warfare does not exist. Each point of view necessarily leads to substantially different claims about the origin of war, and none of the claims can be conclusively proven to be true. Indeed, if conclusive evidence had existed for one view or another, the argument would never have arisen, or it would have been resolved as quickly as the evidence had been discovered. So, like all controversial issues, the question remains open to debate, and anyone involved in such an argument can at best hope to make a persuasive case for a particular viewpoint –a case that will move thoughtful readers to consider that position seriously and possibly even convince them to accept it. As readers of argumentative writing, we in turn should try to be as impartial as the members of a jury. We should try to set aside any biases or prejudices that we might have about one view or another. Then we should weigh all the evidence, logic, claims, and appeals for each viewpoint before arriving at a conclusion about which one we find most convincing. By the same token, as writers of argument we should assume that readers are not likely to be persuaded by a one-sided view of a complex situation. Thus we should be ready to present a case that not only will support our position but will respond to the crucial challenges of views that differ from our own. Both as readers and writers, then, we should strive to understand the balanced methods of persuasion that can be found throughout the broad range of argumentative writing. Argumentative writing so pervades our lives that we may not even recognize it as such in the many brochure and leaflets that come our way, urging us to vote for one candidate rather than another or to support one cause rather than another. Argumentative writing also figures heavily in newspaper editorials, syndicated columns and letters to the editor, which are typically given over to debating the pros and cons of one public issue or another, from local taxes to national defence policies. Argument, of course, is fundamental in the judicial process, providing as it does the basic procedure for conducting all courtroom trials. And it is crucial in the legislative process, for it offers a systematic means of exploring the strengths and weaknesses of different proposed policies, and programs. In a similar way, argument serves the basic aims of the academic world enabling different ideas and theories to be tested by putting them against each other. Whatever the field or profession, argument is an important activity in the advancement of knowledge and society. The broad range of argumentative writing may conveniently be understood by considering the kinds of issues and questions that typically give rise to disagreement and debate. Surely, the most basic sources of controversy and questions of fact- the who, what, when, and where of things, as well as how much. Questions such as these are most commonly at issue in criminal trials. But intense arguments over questions of fact can also develop in an academic or professional field, especially when the facts in question have a significant bearing on the explanation or judgment of a particular subject, body of material, or type of investigation. In "The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon," for example Ron Amundson vigorously challenges the "remarkable and paranormal claims "of several authors who have written about the development of a "group consciousness', among disparate groups of monkeys living on various islands in Japan. Amundson systematically refutes the factual accuracy of their claims, not only because he is interested in getting at the truth about these particular monkeys, but more importantly because as a philosopher of science he is committed to defining, documenting and exposing the flawed "methodology of pseudoscience." So, in a very real sense, the argument in this piece arises over questions of fact as well as questions of how to interpret the facts. Even when there is no question about the facts themselves, there are likely to be arguments about how to explain the facts.Disagreements of this kind abound across the full range of academic and professional fields. And the arguments inevitably arise out of sharply differing points of view on the facts as we have already seen in the case of Mead's piece about the origin of war. As her piece makes clear, everyone appears to agree that war has existed throughout much of human history, and everyone appears to agree that the causes must in some sense be attributable to human beings. But the exact senses in which human beings are responsible remain open to debate. So, Mead and her opponents approach the facts from sharply differing explanatory viewpoints and an argument naturally ensues. Differing viewpoints, of course, ultimately reflect differing beliefs and values. The way we view any particular subject is after all, a matter of personal choice, an outgrowth of what our experience and knowledge have led us to hold as being self-evident. In this sense, beliefs and values are always to some extent at issue in any argumentative situation, even when they remain more or less in the background. But in some cases the conflicting values themselves are so clearly at the heart of the argument that they become the direct focus of the debate. For example in “Why Are Americans Afraid of Dragons?” Ursula Le Guin opposes what she calls the "antifantasy” views of Americans with a sustained argument on behalf of fantastic literature. In order to do so she is compelled to make a case for the value of the imagination itself and for the qualities she attributes to it, such as “the free play of the mind.” In order to support her position here, Le Guin directly challenges one of the major assumptions of the opposing value structure- namely, a belief that the freedom of imaginative activity is at odds with the virtue of discipline. And she challenges this belief in a highly imaginative series of intellectual manoeuvres - first by conceiving of the imagination itself as a "discipline," then by claiming this discipline to be "essential" to 'both art and science" then by defining discipline as a form of training rather than repression, and finally by embodying this idea of discipline in the form of a highly appealing metaphor that links the fruitfulness of a trained peach tree with that of a carefully trained human mind. Thus in the imaginative way that she makes her case, Le Guin enables us to witness the rigorous discipline of the imagination.Le Guin's argument also enables us to see that conflicts over beliefs and values can have an important bearing on questions of policy and planning. Imagine, for example, how our educational system might be designed and operated if it were based on her belief "that the discipline of the imagination may in fact be the essential method or technique of both art and science." Though Le Guin does not map a new education system in her piece, she evidently conceives of fantastic literature and other works of the imagination as being fundamental to the development of healthy human minds. For a clear-cut example of how conflicts over belief lead to debates over policy, you need only look at Lewis Thomas's "The Art of Teaching Science." In the early section of his piece, Thomas challenges conventional beliefs about the certitude of scientific knowledge with his claim that "The conclusions reached in science are always, when looked at closely, far more provisional and tentative than are most of the assumptions arrived at by our colleagues in the humanities." Based on this and related claims, Thomas then proceeds in the later portions of his piece to outline a completely new method of teaching science. Question: The author is most likely to disagree with the following except that:
    • A. 

      Testing an argument is most effective by putting across opposing theories

    • B. 

      War is a man's depiction of aggression, according to political scientists

    • C. 

      There is only one origin of war

    • D. 

      Prejudiced views help in arguing for a belief

  • 2. 
    Passage: The distinctive quality of arguing can be seen in the following passage from Margaret Mead’s “Warfare: An Invention- Not a Biological Necessity”. This passage comes from the opening of a piece in which Mead attempts to prove that warfare is an invention and that as such it can be overcome by the development of new and better inventions which will render it obsolete. In taking this view of warfare,Mead realizes that she is at odds with many others "who think seriously about the problems of war and its possible prevention."Given the significant disagreements that exist between her view and the views of others, she is not free just to make a straightforward case for her own position on the matter. She must instead contend with her opponents, refuting their positions while also providing evidence in support of her own. She is, in short engaged in arguing. And the argumentative situation is immediately reflected in the title of her piece, in its opening question, and in the debate like structure of the paragraphs that follow. Accordingly, Mead begins by identifying the views of her opponents ("those who argue for the first view," "those who take the second view," and those who take "a compromise position between these two extremes"). Then she moves to counter statements intended to refute the opposition ("but I wish to urge another point of view"). This debate continues throughout the piece, as Mead acknowledges the most important counterattacks of her opponents and answers them with her own. So it is that argument puts ideas to the test by forcing them to stand up against opposing beliefs or theories. As this passage also reveals, argument naturally arises over significant issues or questions that are open to sharply differing points of view. Questions about the origin of war, for example, are of crucial interest to persons in a wide range of fields- not only to anthropologists such as Mead, but also to historians, philosophers, political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists, as well as to diplomats, politicians, and military leaders. And persons from these fields might well be inclined to approach the question from markedly different points of view that involve different assumptions as well as different bodies of knowledge and experience. Many psychologists, for example, do regard war as an inescapable consequence of man's “pugnacious instincts” while many political scientists, given their specialized pontiff` view, look upon war as "the inevitable concomitant of the development of the state." Mead, by contrast, given her anthropological orientation believes that the problem can be illuminated by examining a wide variety of cultures, especially those: in which warfare does not exist. Each point of view necessarily leads to substantially different claims about the origin of war, and none of the claims can be conclusively proven to be true. Indeed, if conclusive evidence had existed for one view or another, the argument would never have arisen, or it would have been resolved as quickly as the evidence had been discovered. So, like all controversial issues, the question remains open to debate, and anyone involved in such an argument can at best hope to make a persuasive case for a particular viewpoint –a case that will move thoughtful readers to consider that position seriously and possibly even convince them to accept it. As readers of argumentative writing, we in turn should try to be as impartial as the members of a jury. We should try to set aside any biases or prejudices that we might have about one view or another. Then we should weigh all the evidence, logic, claims, and appeals for each viewpoint before arriving at a conclusion about which one we find most convincing. By the same token, as writers of argument we should assume that readers are not likely to be persuaded by a one-sided view of a complex situation. Thus we should be ready to present a case that not only will support our position but will respond to the crucial challenges of views that differ from our own. Both as readers and writers, then, we should strive to understand the balanced methods of persuasion that can be found throughout the broad range of argumentative writing. Argumentative writing so pervades our lives that we may not even recognize it as such in the many brochure and leaflets that come our way, urging us to vote for one candidate rather than another or to support one cause rather than another. Argumentative writing also figures heavily in newspaper editorials, syndicated columns and letters to the editor, which are typically given over to debating the pros and cons of one public issue or another, from local taxes to national defence policies. Argument, of course, is fundamental in the judicial process, providing as it does the basic procedure for conducting all courtroom trials. And it is crucial in the legislative process, for it offers a systematic means of exploring the strengths and weaknesses of different proposed policies, and programs. In a similar way, argument serves the basic aims of the academic world enabling different ideas and theories to be tested by putting them against each other. Whatever the field or profession, argument is an important activity in the advancement of knowledge and society. The broad range of argumentative writing may conveniently be understood by considering the kinds of issues and questions that typically give rise to disagreement and debate. Surely, the most basic sources of controversy and questions of fact- the who, what, when, and where of things, as well as how much. Questions such as these are most commonly at issue in criminal trials. But intense arguments over questions of fact can also develop in an academic or professional field, especially when the facts in question have a significant bearing on the explanation or judgment of a particular subject, body of material, or type of investigation. In "The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon," for example Ron Amundson vigorously challenges the "remarkable and paranormal claims "of several authors who have written about the development of a "group consciousness', among disparate groups of monkeys living on various islands in Japan. Amundson systematically refutes the factual accuracy of their claims, not only because he is interested in getting at the truth about these particular monkeys, but more importantly because as a philosopher of science he is committed to defining, documenting and exposing the flawed "methodology of pseudoscience." So, in a very real sense, the argument in this piece arises over questions of fact as well as questions of how to interpret the facts. Even when there is no question about the facts themselves, there are likely to be arguments about how to explain the facts.Disagreements of this kind abound across the full range of academic and professional fields. And the arguments inevitably arise out of sharply differing points of view on the facts as we have already seen in the case of Mead's piece about the origin of war. As her piece makes clear, everyone appears to agree that war has existed throughout much of human history, and everyone appears to agree that the causes must in some sense be attributable to human beings. But the exact senses in which human beings are responsible remain open to debate. So, Mead and her opponents approach the facts from sharply differing explanatory viewpoints and an argument naturally ensues. Differing viewpoints, of course, ultimately reflect differing beliefs and values. The way we view any particular subject is after all, a matter of personal choice, an outgrowth of what our experience and knowledge have led us to hold as being self-evident. In this sense, beliefs and values are always to some extent at issue in any argumentative situation, even when they remain more or less in the background. But in some cases the conflicting values themselves are so clearly at the heart of the argument that they become the direct focus of the debate. For example in “Why Are Americans Afraid of Dragons?” Ursula Le Guin opposes what she calls the "antifantasy” views of Americans with a sustained argument on behalf of fantastic literature. In order to do so she is compelled to make a case for the value of the imagination itself and for the qualities she attributes to it, such as “the free play of the mind.” In order to support her position here, Le Guin directly challenges one of the major assumptions of the opposing value structure- namely, a belief that the freedom of imaginative activity is at odds with the virtue of discipline. And she challenges this belief in a highly imaginative series of intellectual manoeuvres - first by conceiving of the imagination itself as a "discipline," then by claiming this discipline to be "essential" to 'both art and science" then by defining discipline as a form of training rather than repression, and finally by embodying this idea of discipline in the form of a highly appealing metaphor that links the fruitfulness of a trained peach tree with that of a carefully trained human mind. Thus in the imaginative way that she makes her case, Le Guin enables us to witness the rigorous discipline of the imagination.Le Guin's argument also enables us to see that conflicts over beliefs and values can have an important bearing on questions of policy and planning. Imagine, for example, how our educational system might be designed and operated if it were based on her belief "that the discipline of the imagination may in fact be the essential method or technique of both art and science." Though Le Guin does not map a new education system in her piece, she evidently conceives of fantastic literature and other works of the imagination as being fundamental to the development of healthy human minds. For a clear-cut example of how conflicts over belief lead to debates over policy, you need only look at Lewis Thomas's "The Art of Teaching Science." In the early section of his piece, Thomas challenges conventional beliefs about the certitude of scientific knowledge with his claim that "The conclusions reached in science are always, when looked at closely, far more provisional and tentative than are most of the assumptions arrived at by our colleagues in the humanities." Based on this and related claims, Thomas then proceeds in the later portions of his piece to outline a completely new method of teaching science. Question: Following are the features of a good argument except that:
    • A. 

      Detached neutrality should be followed

    • B. 

      Claims and counter-claims should exist

    • C. 

      Persuasion of both views must be acceptable

    • D. 

      The crucial challenges should be logically countered

  • 3. 
    Passage: The distinctive quality of arguing can be seen in the following passage from Margaret Mead’s “Warfare: An Invention- Not a Biological Necessity”. This passage comes from the opening of a piece in which Mead attempts to prove that warfare is an invention and that as such it can be overcome by the development of new and better inventions which will render it obsolete. In taking this view of warfare,Mead realizes that she is at odds with many others "who think seriously about the problems of war and its possible prevention."Given the significant disagreements that exist between her view and the views of others, she is not free just to make a straightforward case for her own position on the matter. She must instead contend with her opponents, refuting their positions while also providing evidence in support of her own. She is, in short engaged in arguing. And the argumentative situation is immediately reflected in the title of her piece, in its opening question, and in the debate like structure of the paragraphs that follow. Accordingly, Mead begins by identifying the views of her opponents ("those who argue for the first view," "those who take the second view," and those who take "a compromise position between these two extremes"). Then she moves to counter statements intended to refute the opposition ("but I wish to urge another point of view"). This debate continues throughout the piece, as Mead acknowledges the most important counterattacks of her opponents and answers them with her own. So it is that argument puts ideas to the test by forcing them to stand up against opposing beliefs or theories. As this passage also reveals, argument naturally arises over significant issues or questions that are open to sharply differing points of view. Questions about the origin of war, for example, are of crucial interest to persons in a wide range of fields- not only to anthropologists such as Mead, but also to historians, philosophers, political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists, as well as to diplomats, politicians, and military leaders. And persons from these fields might well be inclined to approach the question from markedly different points of view that involve different assumptions as well as different bodies of knowledge and experience. Many psychologists, for example, do regard war as an inescapable consequence of man's “pugnacious instincts” while many political scientists, given their specialized pontiff` view, look upon war as "the inevitable concomitant of the development of the state." Mead, by contrast, given her anthropological orientation believes that the problem can be illuminated by examining a wide variety of cultures, especially those: in which warfare does not exist. Each point of view necessarily leads to substantially different claims about the origin of war, and none of the claims can be conclusively proven to be true. Indeed, if conclusive evidence had existed for one view or another, the argument would never have arisen, or it would have been resolved as quickly as the evidence had been discovered. So, like all controversial issues, the question remains open to debate, and anyone involved in such an argument can at best hope to make a persuasive case for a particular viewpoint –a case that will move thoughtful readers to consider that position seriously and possibly even convince them to accept it. As readers of argumentative writing, we in turn should try to be as impartial as the members of a jury. We should try to set aside any biases or prejudices that we might have about one view or another. Then we should weigh all the evidence, logic, claims, and appeals for each viewpoint before arriving at a conclusion about which one we find most convincing. By the same token, as writers of argument we should assume that readers are not likely to be persuaded by a one-sided view of a complex situation. Thus we should be ready to present a case that not only will support our position but will respond to the crucial challenges of views that differ from our own. Both as readers and writers, then, we should strive to understand the balanced methods of persuasion that can be found throughout the broad range of argumentative writing. Argumentative writing so pervades our lives that we may not even recognize it as such in the many brochure and leaflets that come our way, urging us to vote for one candidate rather than another or to support one cause rather than another. Argumentative writing also figures heavily in newspaper editorials, syndicated columns and letters to the editor, which are typically given over to debating the pros and cons of one public issue or another, from local taxes to national defence policies. Argument, of course, is fundamental in the judicial process, providing as it does the basic procedure for conducting all courtroom trials. And it is crucial in the legislative process, for it offers a systematic means of exploring the strengths and weaknesses of different proposed policies, and programs. In a similar way, argument serves the basic aims of the academic world enabling different ideas and theories to be tested by putting them against each other. Whatever the field or profession, argument is an important activity in the advancement of knowledge and society. The broad range of argumentative writing may conveniently be understood by considering the kinds of issues and questions that typically give rise to disagreement and debate. Surely, the most basic sources of controversy and questions of fact- the who, what, when, and where of things, as well as how much. Questions such as these are most commonly at issue in criminal trials. But intense arguments over questions of fact can also develop in an academic or professional field, especially when the facts in question have a significant bearing on the explanation or judgment of a particular subject, body of material, or type of investigation. In "The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon," for example Ron Amundson vigorously challenges the "remarkable and paranormal claims "of several authors who have written about the development of a "group consciousness', among disparate groups of monkeys living on various islands in Japan. Amundson systematically refutes the factual accuracy of their claims, not only because he is interested in getting at the truth about these particular monkeys, but more importantly because as a philosopher of science he is committed to defining, documenting and exposing the flawed "methodology of pseudoscience." So, in a very real sense, the argument in this piece arises over questions of fact as well as questions of how to interpret the facts. Even when there is no question about the facts themselves, there are likely to be arguments about how to explain the facts.Disagreements of this kind abound across the full range of academic and professional fields. And the arguments inevitably arise out of sharply differing points of view on the facts as we have already seen in the case of Mead's piece about the origin of war. As her piece makes clear, everyone appears to agree that war has existed throughout much of human history, and everyone appears to agree that the causes must in some sense be attributable to human beings. But the exact senses in which human beings are responsible remain open to debate. So, Mead and her opponents approach the facts from sharply differing explanatory viewpoints and an argument naturally ensues. Differing viewpoints, of course, ultimately reflect differing beliefs and values. The way we view any particular subject is after all, a matter of personal choice, an outgrowth of what our experience and knowledge have led us to hold as being self-evident. In this sense, beliefs and values are always to some extent at issue in any argumentative situation, even when they remain more or less in the background. But in some cases the conflicting values themselves are so clearly at the heart of the argument that they become the direct focus of the debate. For example in “Why Are Americans Afraid of Dragons?” Ursula Le Guin opposes what she calls the "antifantasy” views of Americans with a sustained argument on behalf of fantastic literature. In order to do so she is compelled to make a case for the value of the imagination itself and for the qualities she attributes to it, such as “the free play of the mind.” In order to support her position here, Le Guin directly challenges one of the major assumptions of the opposing value structure- namely, a belief that the freedom of imaginative activity is at odds with the virtue of discipline. And she challenges this belief in a highly imaginative series of intellectual manoeuvres - first by conceiving of the imagination itself as a "discipline," then by claiming this discipline to be "essential" to 'both art and science" then by defining discipline as a form of training rather than repression, and finally by embodying this idea of discipline in the form of a highly appealing metaphor that links the fruitfulness of a trained peach tree with that of a carefully trained human mind. Thus in the imaginative way that she makes her case, Le Guin enables us to witness the rigorous discipline of the imagination.Le Guin's argument also enables us to see that conflicts over beliefs and values can have an important bearing on questions of policy and planning. Imagine, for example, how our educational system might be designed and operated if it were based on her belief "that the discipline of the imagination may in fact be the essential method or technique of both art and science." Though Le Guin does not map a new education system in her piece, she evidently conceives of fantastic literature and other works of the imagination as being fundamental to the development of healthy human minds. For a clear-cut example of how conflicts over belief lead to debates over policy, you need only look at Lewis Thomas's "The Art of Teaching Science." In the early section of his piece, Thomas challenges conventional beliefs about the certitude of scientific knowledge with his claim that "The conclusions reached in science are always, when looked at closely, far more provisional and tentative than are most of the assumptions arrived at by our colleagues in the humanities." Based on this and related claims, Thomas then proceeds in the later portions of his piece to outline a completely new method of teaching science. Question: From the passage we can deduce all of these except that:
    • A. 

      Arguing definitely enhances mental capacity

    • B. 

      Opposing the opponent's claim and stating evidence is arguing

    • C. 

      Significant inconclusive topics are open to debate

    • D. 

      Mead does not believe that warfare is due to nation state only

  • 4. 
    Passage: The distinctive quality of arguing can be seen in the following passage from Margaret Mead’s “Warfare: An Invention- Not a Biological Necessity”. This passage comes from the opening of a piece in which Mead attempts to prove that warfare is an invention and that as such it can be overcome by the development of new and better inventions which will render it obsolete. In taking this view of warfare,Mead realizes that she is at odds with many others "who think seriously about the problems of war and its possible prevention."Given the significant disagreements that exist between her view and the views of others, she is not free just to make a straightforward case for her own position on the matter. She must instead contend with her opponents, refuting their positions while also providing evidence in support of her own. She is, in short engaged in arguing. And the argumentative situation is immediately reflected in the title of her piece, in its opening question, and in the debate like structure of the paragraphs that follow. Accordingly, Mead begins by identifying the views of her opponents ("those who argue for the first view," "those who take the second view," and those who take "a compromise position between these two extremes"). Then she moves to counter statements intended to refute the opposition ("but I wish to urge another point of view"). This debate continues throughout the piece, as Mead acknowledges the most important counterattacks of her opponents and answers them with her own. So it is that argument puts ideas to the test by forcing them to stand up against opposing beliefs or theories. As this passage also reveals, argument naturally arises over significant issues or questions that are open to sharply differing points of view. Questions about the origin of war, for example, are of crucial interest to persons in a wide range of fields- not only to anthropologists such as Mead, but also to historians, philosophers, political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists, as well as to diplomats, politicians, and military leaders. And persons from these fields might well be inclined to approach the question from markedly different points of view that involve different assumptions as well as different bodies of knowledge and experience. Many psychologists, for example, do regard war as an inescapable consequence of man's “pugnacious instincts” while many political scientists, given their specialized pontiff` view, look upon war as "the inevitable concomitant of the development of the state." Mead, by contrast, given her anthropological orientation believes that the problem can be illuminated by examining a wide variety of cultures, especially those: in which warfare does not exist. Each point of view necessarily leads to substantially different claims about the origin of war, and none of the claims can be conclusively proven to be true. Indeed, if conclusive evidence had existed for one view or another, the argument would never have arisen, or it would have been resolved as quickly as the evidence had been discovered. So, like all controversial issues, the question remains open to debate, and anyone involved in such an argument can at best hope to make a persuasive case for a particular viewpoint –a case that will move thoughtful readers to consider that position seriously and possibly even convince them to accept it. As readers of argumentative writing, we in turn should try to be as impartial as the members of a jury. We should try to set aside any biases or prejudices that we might have about one view or another. Then we should weigh all the evidence, logic, claims, and appeals for each viewpoint before arriving at a conclusion about which one we find most convincing. By the same token, as writers of argument we should assume that readers are not likely to be persuaded by a one-sided view of a complex situation. Thus we should be ready to present a case that not only will support our position but will respond to the crucial challenges of views that differ from our own. Both as readers and writers, then, we should strive to understand the balanced methods of persuasion that can be found throughout the broad range of argumentative writing. Argumentative writing so pervades our lives that we may not even recognize it as such in the many brochure and leaflets that come our way, urging us to vote for one candidate rather than another or to support one cause rather than another. Argumentative writing also figures heavily in newspaper editorials, syndicated columns and letters to the editor, which are typically given over to debating the pros and cons of one public issue or another, from local taxes to national defence policies. Argument, of course, is fundamental in the judicial process, providing as it does the basic procedure for conducting all courtroom trials. And it is crucial in the legislative process, for it offers a systematic means of exploring the strengths and weaknesses of different proposed policies, and programs. In a similar way, argument serves the basic aims of the academic world enabling different ideas and theories to be tested by putting them against each other. Whatever the field or profession, argument is an important activity in the advancement of knowledge and society. The broad range of argumentative writing may conveniently be understood by considering the kinds of issues and questions that typically give rise to disagreement and debate. Surely, the most basic sources of controversy and questions of fact- the who, what, when, and where of things, as well as how much. Questions such as these are most commonly at issue in criminal trials. But intense arguments over questions of fact can also develop in an academic or professional field, especially when the facts in question have a significant bearing on the explanation or judgment of a particular subject, body of material, or type of investigation. In "The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon," for example Ron Amundson vigorously challenges the "remarkable and paranormal claims "of several authors who have written about the development of a "group consciousness', among disparate groups of monkeys living on various islands in Japan. Amundson systematically refutes the factual accuracy of their claims, not only because he is interested in getting at the truth about these particular monkeys, but more importantly because as a philosopher of science he is committed to defining, documenting and exposing the flawed "methodology of pseudoscience." So, in a very real sense, the argument in this piece arises over questions of fact as well as questions of how to interpret the facts. Even when there is no question about the facts themselves, there are likely to be arguments about how to explain the facts.Disagreements of this kind abound across the full range of academic and professional fields. And the arguments inevitably arise out of sharply differing points of view on the facts as we have already seen in the case of Mead's piece about the origin of war. As her piece makes clear, everyone appears to agree that war has existed throughout much of human history, and everyone appears to agree that the causes must in some sense be attributable to human beings. But the exact senses in which human beings are responsible remain open to debate. So, Mead and her opponents approach the facts from sharply differing explanatory viewpoints and an argument naturally ensues. Differing viewpoints, of course, ultimately reflect differing beliefs and values. The way we view any particular subject is after all, a matter of personal choice, an outgrowth of what our experience and knowledge have led us to hold as being self-evident. In this sense, beliefs and values are always to some extent at issue in any argumentative situation, even when they remain more or less in the background. But in some cases the conflicting values themselves are so clearly at the heart of the argument that they become the direct focus of the debate. For example in “Why Are Americans Afraid of Dragons?” Ursula Le Guin opposes what she calls the "antifantasy” views of Americans with a sustained argument on behalf of fantastic literature. In order to do so she is compelled to make a case for the value of the imagination itself and for the qualities she attributes to it, such as “the free play of the mind.” In order to support her position here, Le Guin directly challenges one of the major assumptions of the opposing value structure- namely, a belief that the freedom of imaginative activity is at odds with the virtue of discipline. And she challenges this belief in a highly imaginative series of intellectual manoeuvres - first by conceiving of the imagination itself as a "discipline," then by claiming this discipline to be "essential" to 'both art and science" then by defining discipline as a form of training rather than repression, and finally by embodying this idea of discipline in the form of a highly appealing metaphor that links the fruitfulness of a trained peach tree with that of a carefully trained human mind. Thus in the imaginative way that she makes her case, Le Guin enables us to witness the rigorous discipline of the imagination.Le Guin's argument also enables us to see that conflicts over beliefs and values can have an important bearing on questions of policy and planning. Imagine, for example, how our educational system might be designed and operated if it were based on her belief "that the discipline of the imagination may in fact be the essential method or technique of both art and science." Though Le Guin does not map a new education system in her piece, she evidently conceives of fantastic literature and other works of the imagination as being fundamental to the development of healthy human minds. For a clear-cut example of how conflicts over belief lead to debates over policy, you need only look at Lewis Thomas's "The Art of Teaching Science." In the early section of his piece, Thomas challenges conventional beliefs about the certitude of scientific knowledge with his claim that "The conclusions reached in science are always, when looked at closely, far more provisional and tentative than are most of the assumptions arrived at by our colleagues in the humanities." Based on this and related claims, Thomas then proceeds in the later portions of his piece to outline a completely new method of teaching science. Question: The author says that following an argument
    • A. 

      Needs a complex web of claims and counter statements

    • B. 

      Requires a knowledge of the opponent's personal attributes

    • C. 

      Needs investigative capabilities only

    • D. 

      Needs a total refusal of factual claims

  • 5. 
    Passage: The distinctive quality of arguing can be seen in the following passage from Margaret Mead’s “Warfare: An Invention- Not a Biological Necessity”. This passage comes from the opening of a piece in which Mead attempts to prove that warfare is an invention and that as such it can be overcome by the development of new and better inventions which will render it obsolete. In taking this view of warfare,Mead realizes that she is at odds with many others "who think seriously about the problems of war and its possible prevention."Given the significant disagreements that exist between her view and the views of others, she is not free just to make a straightforward case for her own position on the matter. She must instead contend with her opponents, refuting their positions while also providing evidence in support of her own. She is, in short engaged in arguing. And the argumentative situation is immediately reflected in the title of her piece, in its opening question, and in the debate like structure of the paragraphs that follow. Accordingly, Mead begins by identifying the views of her opponents ("those who argue for the first view," "those who take the second view," and those who take "a compromise position between these two extremes"). Then she moves to counter statements intended to refute the opposition ("but I wish to urge another point of view"). This debate continues throughout the piece, as Mead acknowledges the most important counterattacks of her opponents and answers them with her own. So it is that argument puts ideas to the test by forcing them to stand up against opposing beliefs or theories. As this passage also reveals, argument naturally arises over significant issues or questions that are open to sharply differing points of view. Questions about the origin of war, for example, are of crucial interest to persons in a wide range of fields- not only to anthropologists such as Mead, but also to historians, philosophers, political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists, as well as to diplomats, politicians, and military leaders. And persons from these fields might well be inclined to approach the question from markedly different points of view that involve different assumptions as well as different bodies of knowledge and experience. Many psychologists, for example, do regard war as an inescapable consequence of man's “pugnacious instincts” while many political scientists, given their specialized pontiff` view, look upon war as "the inevitable concomitant of the development of the state." Mead, by contrast, given her anthropological orientation believes that the problem can be illuminated by examining a wide variety of cultures, especially those: in which warfare does not exist. Each point of view necessarily leads to substantially different claims about the origin of war, and none of the claims can be conclusively proven to be true. Indeed, if conclusive evidence had existed for one view or another, the argument would never have arisen, or it would have been resolved as quickly as the evidence had been discovered. So, like all controversial issues, the question remains open to debate, and anyone involved in such an argument can at best hope to make a persuasive case for a particular viewpoint –a case that will move thoughtful readers to consider that position seriously and possibly even convince them to accept it. As readers of argumentative writing, we in turn should try to be as impartial as the members of a jury. We should try to set aside any biases or prejudices that we might have about one view or another. Then we should weigh all the evidence, logic, claims, and appeals for each viewpoint before arriving at a conclusion about which one we find most convincing. By the same token, as writers of argument we should assume that readers are not likely to be persuaded by a one-sided view of a complex situation. Thus we should be ready to present a case that not only will support our position but will respond to the crucial challenges of views that differ from our own. Both as readers and writers, then, we should strive to understand the balanced methods of persuasion that can be found throughout the broad range of argumentative writing. Argumentative writing so pervades our lives that we may not even recognize it as such in the many brochure and leaflets that come our way, urging us to vote for one candidate rather than another or to support one cause rather than another. Argumentative writing also figures heavily in newspaper editorials, syndicated columns and letters to the editor, which are typically given over to debating the pros and cons of one public issue or another, from local taxes to national defence policies. Argument, of course, is fundamental in the judicial process, providing as it does the basic procedure for conducting all courtroom trials. And it is crucial in the legislative process, for it offers a systematic means of exploring the strengths and weaknesses of different proposed policies, and programs. In a similar way, argument serves the basic aims of the academic world enabling different ideas and theories to be tested by putting them against each other. Whatever the field or profession, argument is an important activity in the advancement of knowledge and society. The broad range of argumentative writing may conveniently be understood by considering the kinds of issues and questions that typically give rise to disagreement and debate. Surely, the most basic sources of controversy and questions of fact- the who, what, when, and where of things, as well as how much. Questions such as these are most commonly at issue in criminal trials. But intense arguments over questions of fact can also develop in an academic or professional field, especially when the facts in question have a significant bearing on the explanation or judgment of a particular subject, body of material, or type of investigation. In "The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon," for example Ron Amundson vigorously challenges the "remarkable and paranormal claims "of several authors who have written about the development of a "group consciousness', among disparate groups of monkeys living on various islands in Japan. Amundson systematically refutes the factual accuracy of their claims, not only because he is interested in getting at the truth about these particular monkeys, but more importantly because as a philosopher of science he is committed to defining, documenting and exposing the flawed "methodology of pseudoscience." So, in a very real sense, the argument in this piece arises over questions of fact as well as questions of how to interpret the facts. Even when there is no question about the facts themselves, there are likely to be arguments about how to explain the facts.Disagreements of this kind abound across the full range of academic and professional fields. And the arguments inevitably arise out of sharply differing points of view on the facts as we have already seen in the case of Mead's piece about the origin of war. As her piece makes clear, everyone appears to agree that war has existed throughout much of human history, and everyone appears to agree that the causes must in some sense be attributable to human beings. But the exact senses in which human beings are responsible remain open to debate. So, Mead and her opponents approach the facts from sharply differing explanatory viewpoints and an argument naturally ensues. Differing viewpoints, of course, ultimately reflect differing beliefs and values. The way we view any particular subject is after all, a matter of personal choice, an outgrowth of what our experience and knowledge have led us to hold as being self-evident. In this sense, beliefs and values are always to some extent at issue in any argumentative situation, even when they remain more or less in the background. But in some cases the conflicting values themselves are so clearly at the heart of the argument that they become the direct focus of the debate. For example in “Why Are Americans Afraid of Dragons?” Ursula Le Guin opposes what she calls the "antifantasy” views of Americans with a sustained argument on behalf of fantastic literature. In order to do so she is compelled to make a case for the value of the imagination itself and for the qualities she attributes to it, such as “the free play of the mind.” In order to support her position here, Le Guin directly challenges one of the major assumptions of the opposing value structure- namely, a belief that the freedom of imaginative activity is at odds with the virtue of discipline. And she challenges this belief in a highly imaginative series of intellectual manoeuvres - first by conceiving of the imagination itself as a "discipline," then by claiming this discipline to be "essential" to 'both art and science" then by defining discipline as a form of training rather than repression, and finally by embodying this idea of discipline in the form of a highly appealing metaphor that links the fruitfulness of a trained peach tree with that of a carefully trained human mind. Thus in the imaginative way that she makes her case, Le Guin enables us to witness the rigorous discipline of the imagination.Le Guin's argument also enables us to see that conflicts over beliefs and values can have an important bearing on questions of policy and planning. Imagine, for example, how our educational system might be designed and operated if it were based on her belief "that the discipline of the imagination may in fact be the essential method or technique of both art and science." Though Le Guin does not map a new education system in her piece, she evidently conceives of fantastic literature and other works of the imagination as being fundamental to the development of healthy human minds. For a clear-cut example of how conflicts over belief lead to debates over policy, you need only look at Lewis Thomas's "The Art of Teaching Science." In the early section of his piece, Thomas challenges conventional beliefs about the certitude of scientific knowledge with his claim that "The conclusions reached in science are always, when looked at closely, far more provisional and tentative than are most of the assumptions arrived at by our colleagues in the humanities." Based on this and related claims, Thomas then proceeds in the later portions of his piece to outline a completely new method of teaching science. Question: The nature of arguing is to
    • A. 

      Abandon established thoughts

    • B. 

      Oppose differing viewpoints and beliefs

    • C. 

      Create an impartial acceptance of all beliefs

    • D. 

      None of the above

  • 6. 
    Passage: The distinctive quality of arguing can be seen in the following passage from Margaret Mead’s “Warfare: An Invention- Not a Biological Necessity”. This passage comes from the opening of a piece in which Mead attempts to prove that warfare is an invention and that as such it can be overcome by the development of new and better inventions which will render it obsolete. In taking this view of warfare,Mead realizes that she is at odds with many others "who think seriously about the problems of war and its possible prevention."Given the significant disagreements that exist between her view and the views of others, she is not free just to make a straightforward case for her own position on the matter. She must instead contend with her opponents, refuting their positions while also providing evidence in support of her own. She is, in short engaged in arguing. And the argumentative situation is immediately reflected in the title of her piece, in its opening question, and in the debate like structure of the paragraphs that follow. Accordingly, Mead begins by identifying the views of her opponents ("those who argue for the first view," "those who take the second view," and those who take "a compromise position between these two extremes"). Then she moves to counter statements intended to refute the opposition ("but I wish to urge another point of view"). This debate continues throughout the piece, as Mead acknowledges the most important counterattacks of her opponents and answers them with her own. So it is that argument puts ideas to the test by forcing them to stand up against opposing beliefs or theories. As this passage also reveals, argument naturally arises over significant issues or questions that are open to sharply differing points of view. Questions about the origin of war, for example, are of crucial interest to persons in a wide range of fields- not only to anthropologists such as Mead, but also to historians, philosophers, political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists, as well as to diplomats, politicians, and military leaders. And persons from these fields might well be inclined to approach the question from markedly different points of view that involve different assumptions as well as different bodies of knowledge and experience. Many psychologists, for example, do regard war as an inescapable consequence of man's “pugnacious instincts” while many political scientists, given their specialized pontiff` view, look upon war as "the inevitable concomitant of the development of the state." Mead, by contrast, given her anthropological orientation believes that the problem can be illuminated by examining a wide variety of cultures, especially those: in which warfare does not exist. Each point of view necessarily leads to substantially different claims about the origin of war, and none of the claims can be conclusively proven to be true. Indeed, if conclusive evidence had existed for one view or another, the argument would never have arisen, or it would have been resolved as quickly as the evidence had been discovered. So, like all controversial issues, the question remains open to debate, and anyone involved in such an argument can at best hope to make a persuasive case for a particular viewpoint –a case that will move thoughtful readers to consider that position seriously and possibly even convince them to accept it. As readers of argumentative writing, we in turn should try to be as impartial as the members of a jury. We should try to set aside any biases or prejudices that we might have about one view or another. Then we should weigh all the evidence, logic, claims, and appeals for each viewpoint before arriving at a conclusion about which one we find most convincing. By the same token, as writers of argument we should assume that readers are not likely to be persuaded by a one-sided view of a complex situation. Thus we should be ready to present a case that not only will support our position but will respond to the crucial challenges of views that differ from our own. Both as readers and writers, then, we should strive to understand the balanced methods of persuasion that can be found throughout the broad range of argumentative writing. Argumentative writing so pervades our lives that we may not even recognize it as such in the many brochure and leaflets that come our way, urging us to vote for one candidate rather than another or to support one cause rather than another. Argumentative writing also figures heavily in newspaper editorials, syndicated columns and letters to the editor, which are typically given over to debating the pros and cons of one public issue or another, from local taxes to national defence policies. Argument, of course, is fundamental in the judicial process, providing as it does the basic procedure for conducting all courtroom trials. And it is crucial in the legislative process, for it offers a systematic means of exploring the strengths and weaknesses of different proposed policies, and programs. In a similar way, argument serves the basic aims of the academic world enabling different ideas and theories to be tested by putting them against each other. Whatever the field or profession, argument is an important activity in the advancement of knowledge and society. The broad range of argumentative writing may conveniently be understood by considering the kinds of issues and questions that typically give rise to disagreement and debate. Surely, the most basic sources of controversy and questions of fact- the who, what, when, and where of things, as well as how much. Questions such as these are most commonly at issue in criminal trials. But intense arguments over questions of fact can also develop in an academic or professional field, especially when the facts in question have a significant bearing on the explanation or judgment of a particular subject, body of material, or type of investigation. In "The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon," for example Ron Amundson vigorously challenges the "remarkable and paranormal claims "of several authors who have written about the development of a "group consciousness', among disparate groups of monkeys living on various islands in Japan. Amundson systematically refutes the factual accuracy of their claims, not only because he is interested in getting at the truth about these particular monkeys, but more importantly because as a philosopher of science he is committed to defining, documenting and exposing the flawed "methodology of pseudoscience." So, in a very real sense, the argument in this piece arises over questions of fact as well as questions of how to interpret the facts. Even when there is no question about the facts themselves, there are likely to be arguments about how to explain the facts.Disagreements of this kind abound across the full range of academic and professional fields. And the arguments inevitably arise out of sharply differing points of view on the facts as we have already seen in the case of Mead's piece about the origin of war. As her piece makes clear, everyone appears to agree that war has existed throughout much of human history, and everyone appears to agree that the causes must in some sense be attributable to human beings. But the exact senses in which human beings are responsible remain open to debate. So, Mead and her opponents approach the facts from sharply differing explanatory viewpoints and an argument naturally ensues. Differing viewpoints, of course, ultimately reflect differing beliefs and values. The way we view any particular subject is after all, a matter of personal choice, an outgrowth of what our experience and knowledge have led us to hold as being self-evident. In this sense, beliefs and values are always to some extent at issue in any argumentative situation, even when they remain more or less in the background. But in some cases the conflicting values themselves are so clearly at the heart of the argument that they become the direct focus of the debate. For example in “Why Are Americans Afraid of Dragons?” Ursula Le Guin opposes what she calls the "antifantasy” views of Americans with a sustained argument on behalf of fantastic literature. In order to do so she is compelled to make a case for the value of the imagination itself and for the qualities she attributes to it, such as “the free play of the mind.” In order to support her position here, Le Guin directly challenges one of the major assumptions of the opposing value structure- namely, a belief that the freedom of imaginative activity is at odds with the virtue of discipline. And she challenges this belief in a highly imaginative series of intellectual manoeuvres - first by conceiving of the imagination itself as a "discipline," then by claiming this discipline to be "essential" to 'both art and science" then by defining discipline as a form of training rather than repression, and finally by embodying this idea of discipline in the form of a highly appealing metaphor that links the fruitfulness of a trained peach tree with that of a carefully trained human mind. Thus in the imaginative way that she makes her case, Le Guin enables us to witness the rigorous discipline of the imagination.Le Guin's argument also enables us to see that conflicts over beliefs and values can have an important bearing on questions of policy and planning. Imagine, for example, how our educational system might be designed and operated if it were based on her belief "that the discipline of the imagination may in fact be the essential method or technique of both art and science." Though Le Guin does not map a new education system in her piece, she evidently conceives of fantastic literature and other works of the imagination as being fundamental to the development of healthy human minds. For a clear-cut example of how conflicts over belief lead to debates over policy, you need only look at Lewis Thomas's "The Art of Teaching Science." In the early section of his piece, Thomas challenges conventional beliefs about the certitude of scientific knowledge with his claim that "The conclusions reached in science are always, when looked at closely, far more provisional and tentative than are most of the assumptions arrived at by our colleagues in the humanities." Based on this and related claims, Thomas then proceeds in the later portions of his piece to outline a completely new method of teaching science. Question: The author’s view on Ursula Le Guin's argument is that A. Personal experience and knowledge perpetuate the self belief     B. Americans love the Dragon theories C. She has an imaginative sequencing of planning and policy
    • A. 

      Only A

    • B. 

      Only C

    • C. 

      Both A and C

    • D. 

      Both B and C

  • 7. 
    Passage: The distinctive quality of arguing can be seen in the following passage from Margaret Mead’s “Warfare: An Invention- Not a Biological Necessity”. This passage comes from the opening of a piece in which Mead attempts to prove that warfare is an invention and that as such it can be overcome by the development of new and better inventions which will render it obsolete. In taking this view of warfare,Mead realizes that she is at odds with many others "who think seriously about the problems of war and its possible prevention."Given the significant disagreements that exist between her view and the views of others, she is not free just to make a straightforward case for her own position on the matter. She must instead contend with her opponents, refuting their positions while also providing evidence in support of her own. She is, in short engaged in arguing. And the argumentative situation is immediately reflected in the title of her piece, in its opening question, and in the debate like structure of the paragraphs that follow. Accordingly, Mead begins by identifying the views of her opponents ("those who argue for the first view," "those who take the second view," and those who take "a compromise position between these two extremes"). Then she moves to counter statements intended to refute the opposition ("butI wish to urge another point of view"). This debate continues throughout the piece, as Mead acknowledges the most important counterattacks of her opponents and answers them with her own. So it is that argument puts ideas to the test by forcing them to stand up against opposing beliefs or theories. As this passage also reveals, argument naturally arises over significant issues or questions that are open to sharply differing points of view. Questions about the origin of war, for example, are of crucial interest to persons in a wide range of fields- not only to anthropologists such as Mead, but also to historians, philosophers, political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists, as well as to diplomats, politicians, and military leaders. And persons from these fields might well be inclined to approach the question from markedly different points of view that involve different assumptions as well as different bodies of knowledge and experience. Many psychologists, for example, do regard war as an inescapable consequence of man's “pugnacious instincts” while many political scientists, given their specialized pontiff` view, look upon war as "the inevitable concomitant of the development of the state." Mead, by contrast, given her anthropological orientation believes that the problem can be illuminated by examining a wide variety of cultures, especially those: in which warfare does not exist. Each point of view necessarily leads to substantially different claims about the origin of war, and none of the claims can be conclusively proven to be true. Indeed, if conclusive evidence had existed for one view or another, the argument would never have arisen, or it would have been resolved as quickly as the evidence had been discovered. So, like all controversial issues, the question remains open to debate, and anyone involved in such an argument can at best hope to make a persuasive case for a particular viewpoint –a case that will move thoughtful readers to consider that position seriously and possibly even convince them to accept it. As readers of argumentative writing, we in turn should try to be as impartial as the members of a jury. We should try to set aside any biases or prejudices that we might have about one view or another. Then we should weigh all the evidence, logic, claims, and appeals for each viewpoint before arriving at a conclusion about which one we find most convincing. By the same token, as writers of argument we should assume that readers are not likely to be persuaded by a one-sided view of a complex situation. Thus we should be ready to present a case that not only will support our position but will respond to the crucial challenges of views that differ from our own. Both as readers and writers, then, we should strive to understand the balanced methods of persuasion that can be found throughout the broad range of argumentative writing. Argumentative writing so pervades our lives that we may not even recognize it as such in the many brochure and leaflets that come our way, urging us to vote for one candidate rather than another or to support one cause rather than another. Argumentative writing also figures heavily in newspaper editorials, syndicated columns and letters to the editor, which are typically given over to debating the pros and cons of one public issue or another, from local taxes to national defence policies. Argument, of course, is fundamental in the judicial process, providing as it does the basic procedure for conducting all courtroom trials. And it is crucial in the legislative process, for it offers a systematic means of exploring the strengths and weaknesses of different proposed policies, and programs. In a similar way, argument serves the basic aims of the academic world enabling different ideas and theories to be tested by putting them against each other. Whatever the field or profession, argument is an important activity in the advancement of knowledge and society. The broad range of argumentative writing may conveniently be understood by considering the kinds of issues and questions that typically give rise to disagreement and debate. Surely, the most basic sources of controversy and questions of fact- the who, what, when, and where of things, as well as how much. Questions such as these are most commonly at issue in criminal trials. But intense arguments over questions of fact can also develop in an academic or professional field, especially when the facts in question have a significant bearing on the explanation or judgment of a particular subject, body of material, or type of investigation. In "The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon," for example Ron Amundson vigorously challenges the "remarkable and paranormal claims "of several authors who have written about the development of a "group consciousness', among disparate groups of monkeys living on various islands in Japan. Amundson systematically refutes the factual accuracy of their claims, not only because he is interested in getting at the truth about these particular monkeys, but more importantly because as a philosopher of science he is committed to defining, documenting and exposing the flawed "methodology of pseudoscience." So, in a very real sense, the argument in this piece arises over questions of fact as well as questions of how to interpret the facts. Even when there is no question about the facts themselves, there are likely to be arguments about how to explain the facts.Disagreements of this kind abound across the full range of academic and professional fields. And the arguments inevitably arise out of sharply differing points of view on the facts as we have already seen in the case of Mead's piece about the origin of war. As her piece makes clear, everyone appears to agree that war has existed throughout much of human history, and everyone appears to agree that the causes must in some sense be attributable to human beings. But the exact senses in which human beings are responsible remain open to debate. So, Mead and her opponents approach the facts from sharply differing explanatory viewpoints and an argument naturally ensues. Differing viewpoints, of course, ultimately reflect differing beliefs and values. The way we view any particular subject is after all, a matter of personal choice, an outgrowth of what our experience and knowledge have led us to hold as being self-evident. In this sense, beliefs and values are always to some extent at issue in any argumentative situation, even when they remain more or less in the background. But in some cases the conflicting values themselves are so clearly at the heart of the argument that they become the direct focus of the debate. For example in “Why Are Americans Afraid of Dragons?” Ursula Le Guin opposes what she calls the "antifantasy” views of Americans with a sustained argument on behalf of fantastic literature. In order to do so she is compelled to make a case for the value of the imagination itself and for the qualities she attributes to it, such as “the free play of the mind.” In order to support her position here, Le Guin directly challenges one of the major assumptions of the opposing value structure- namely, a belief that the freedom of imaginative activity is at odds with the virtue of discipline. And she challenges this belief in a highly imaginative series of intellectual manoeuvres - first by conceiving of the imagination itself as a "discipline," then by claiming this discipline to be "essential" to 'both art and science" then by defining discipline as a form of training rather than repression, and finally by embodying this idea of discipline in the form of a highly appealing metaphor that links the fruitfulness of a trained peach tree with that of a carefully trained human mind. Thus in the imaginative way that she makes her case, Le Guin enables us to witness the rigorous discipline of the imagination.Le Guin's argument also enables us to see that conflicts over beliefs and values can have an important bearing on questions of policy and planning. Imagine, for example, how our educational system might be designed and operated if it were based on her belief "that the discipline of the imagination may in fact be the essential method or technique of both art and science." Though Le Guin does not map a new education system in her piece, she evidently conceives of fantastic literature and other works of the imagination as being fundamental to the development of healthy human minds. For a clear-cut example of how conflicts over belief lead to debates over policy, you need only look at Lewis Thomas's "The Art of Teaching Science." In the early section of his piece, Thomas challenges conventional beliefs about the certitude of scientific knowledge with his claim that "The conclusions reached in science are always, when looked at closely, far more provisional and tentative than are most of the assumptions arrived at by our colleagues in the humanities." Based on this and related claims, Thomas then proceeds in the later portions of his piece to outline a completely new method of teaching science. Question: Le Guin would not be averse to the idea of
    • A. 

      Dragons being portrayed as an extension of the human mind

    • B. 

      Educational texts being dragon-oriented to develop fantastic mental capabilities

    • C. 

      Exposure to imaginative literature for the healthy development of human mind

    • D. 

      Dragons as the harbingers of an educational text to help children develop

  • 8. 
    Passage: The distinctive quality of arguing can be seen in the following passage from Margaret Mead’s “Warfare: An Invention- Not a Biological Necessity”. This passage comes from the opening of a piece in which Mead attempts to prove that warfare is an invention and that as such it can be overcome by the development of new and better inventions which will render it obsolete. In taking this view of warfare,Mead realizes that she is at odds with many others "who think seriously about the problems of war and its possible prevention."Given the significant disagreements that exist between her view and the views of others, she is not free just to make a straightforward case for her own position on the matter. She must instead contend with her opponents, refuting their positions while also providing evidence in support of her own. She is, in short engaged in arguing. And the argumentative situation is immediately reflected in the title of her piece, in its opening question, and in the debate like structure of the paragraphs that follow. Accordingly, Mead begins by identifying the views of her opponents ("those who argue for the first view," "those who take the second view," and those who take "a compromise position between these two extremes"). Then she moves to counter statements intended to refute the opposition ("but I wish to urge another point of view"). This debate continues throughout the piece, as Mead acknowledges the most important counterattacks of her opponents and answers them with her own. So it is that argument puts ideas to the test by forcing them to stand up against opposing beliefs or theories. As this passage also reveals, argument naturally arises over significant issues or questions that are open to sharply differing points of view. Questions about the origin of war, for example, are of crucial interest to persons in a wide range of fields- not only to anthropologists such as Mead, but also to historians, philosophers, political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists, as well as to diplomats, politicians, and military leaders. And persons from these fields might well be inclined to approach the question from markedly different points of view that involve different assumptions as well as different bodies of knowledge and experience. Many psychologists, for example, do regard war as an inescapable consequence of man's “pugnacious instincts” while many political scientists, given their specialized pontiff` view, look upon war as "the inevitable concomitant of the development of the state." Mead, by contrast, given her anthropological orientation believes that the problem can be illuminated by examining a wide variety of cultures, especially those: in which warfare does not exist. Each point of view necessarily leads to substantially different claims about the origin of war, and none of the claims can be conclusively proven to be true. Indeed, if conclusive evidence had existed for one view or another, the argument would never have arisen, or it would have been resolved as quickly as the evidence had been discovered. So, like all controversial issues, the question remains open to debate, and anyone involved in such an argument can at best hope to make a persuasive case for a particular viewpoint –a case that will move thoughtful readers to consider that position seriously and possibly even convince them to accept it. As readers of argumentative writing, we in turn should try to be as impartial as the members of a jury. We should try to set aside any biases or prejudices that we might have about one view or another. Then we should weigh all the evidence, logic, claims, and appeals for each viewpoint before arriving at a conclusion about which one we find most convincing. By the same token, as writers of argument we should assume that readers are not likely to be persuaded by a one-sided view of a complex situation. Thus we should be ready to present a case that not only will support our position but will respond to the crucial challenges of views that differ from our own. Both as readers and writers, then, we should strive to understand the balanced methods of persuasion that can be found throughout the broad range of argumentative writing. Argumentative writing so pervades our lives that we may not even recognize it as such in the many brochure and leaflets that come our way, urging us to vote for one candidate rather than another or to support one cause rather than another. Argumentative writing also figures heavily in newspaper editorials, syndicated columns and letters to the editor, which are typically given over to debating the pros and cons of one public issue or another, from local taxes to national defence policies. Argument, of course, is fundamental in the judicial process, providing as it does the basic procedure for conducting all courtroom trials. And it is crucial in the legislative process, for it offers a systematic means of exploring the strengths and weaknesses of different proposed policies, and programs. In a similar way, argument serves the basic aims of the academic world enabling different ideas and theories to be tested by putting them against each other. Whatever the field or profession, argument is an important activity in the advancement of knowledge and society. The broad range of argumentative writing may conveniently be understood by considering the kinds of issues and questions that typically give rise to disagreement and debate. Surely, the most basic sources of controversy and questions of fact- the who, what, when, and where of things, as well as how much. Questions such as these are most commonly at issue in criminal trials. But intense arguments over questions of fact can also develop in an academic or professional field, especially when the facts in question have a significant bearing on the explanation or judgment of a particular subject, body of material, or type of investigation. In "The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon," for example Ron Amundson vigorously challenges the "remarkable and paranormal claims "of several authors who have written about the development of a "group consciousness', among disparate groups of monkeys living on various islands in Japan. Amundson systematically refutes the factual accuracy of their claims, not only because he is interested in getting at the truth about these particular monkeys, but more importantly because as a philosopher of science he is committed to defining, documenting and exposing the flawed "methodology of pseudoscience." So, in a very real sense, the argument in this piece arises over questions of fact as well as questions of how to interpret the facts. Even when there is no question about the facts themselves, there are likely to be arguments about how to explain the facts.Disagreements of this kind abound across the full range of academic and professional fields. And the arguments inevitably arise out of sharply differing points of view on the facts as we have already seen in the case of Mead's piece about the origin of war. As her piece makes clear, everyone appears to agree that war has existed throughout much of human history, and everyone appears to agree that the causes must in some sense be attributable to human beings. But the exact senses in which human beings are responsible remain open to debate. So, Mead and her opponents approach the facts from sharply differing explanatory viewpoints and an argument naturally ensues. Differing viewpoints, of course, ultimately reflect differing beliefs and values. The way we view any particular subject is after all, a matter of personal choice, an outgrowth of what our experience and knowledge have led us to hold as being self-evident. In this sense, beliefs and values are always to some extent at issue in any argumentative situation, even when they remain more or less in the background. But in some cases the conflicting values themselves are so clearly at the heart of the argument that they become the direct focus of the debate. For example in “Why Are Americans Afraid of Dragons?” Ursula Le Guin opposes what she calls the "antifantasy” views of Americans with a sustained argument on behalf of fantastic literature. In order to do so she is compelled to make a case for the value of the imagination itself and for the qualities she attributes to it, such as “the free play of the mind.” In order to support her position here, Le Guin directly challenges one of the major assumptions of the opposing value structure- namely, a belief that the freedom of imaginative activity is at odds with the virtue of discipline. And she challenges this belief in a highly imaginative series of intellectual manoeuvres - first by conceiving of the imagination itself as a "discipline," then by claiming this discipline to be "essential" to 'both art and science" then by defining discipline as a form of training rather than repression, and finally by embodying this idea of discipline in the form of a highly appealing metaphor that links the fruitfulness of a trained peach tree with that of a carefully trained human mind. Thus in the imaginative way that she makes her case, Le Guin enables us to witness the rigorous discipline of the imagination.Le Guin's argument also enables us to see that conflicts over beliefs and values can have an important bearing on questions of policy and planning. Imagine, for example, how our educational system might be designed and operated if it were based on her belief "that the discipline of the imagination may in fact be the essential method or technique of both art and science." Though Le Guin does not map a new education system in her piece, she evidently conceives of fantastic literature and other works of the imagination as being fundamental to the development of healthy human minds. For a clear-cut example of how conflicts over belief lead to debates over policy, you need only look at Lewis Thomas's "The Art of Teaching Science." In the early section of his piece, Thomas challenges conventional beliefs about the certitude of scientific knowledge with his claim that "The conclusions reached in science are always, when looked at closely, far more provisional and tentative than are most of the assumptions arrived at by our colleagues in the humanities." Based on this and related claims, Thomas then proceeds in the later portions of his piece to outline a completely new method of teaching science. Question: The way we look at any issue
    • A. 

      Is a reflection of societal values at that point of time

    • B. 

      Is a matter of personal choice

    • C. 

      Is a collective result of personal choice, societal actions, and cultural prejudices

    • D. 

      Is highly controversial

  • 9. 
    Passage: The distinctive quality of arguing can be seen in the following passage from Margaret Mead’s “Warfare: An Invention- Not a Biological Necessity”. This passage comes from the opening of a piece in which Mead attempts to prove that warfare is an invention and that as such it can be overcome by the development of new and better inventions which will render it obsolete. In taking this view of warfare,Mead realizes that she is at odds with many others "who think seriously about the problems of war and its possible prevention."Given the significant disagreements that exist between her view and the views of others, she is not free just to make a straightforward case for her own position on the matter. She must instead contend with her opponents, refuting their positions while also providing evidence in support of her own. She is, in short engaged in arguing. And the argumentative situation is immediately reflected in the title of her piece, in its opening question, and in the debate like structure of the paragraphs that follow. Accordingly, Mead begins by identifying the views of her opponents ("those who argue for the first view," "those who take the second view," and those who take "a compromise position between these two extremes"). Then she moves to counter statements intended to refute the opposition ("but I wish to urge another point of view"). This debate continues throughout the piece, as Mead acknowledges the most important counterattacks of her opponents and answers them with her own. So it is that argument puts ideas to the test by forcing them to stand up against opposing beliefs or theories. As this passage also reveals, argument naturally arises over significant issues or questions that are open to sharply differing points of view. Questions about the origin of war, for example, are of crucial interest to persons in a wide range of fields- not only to anthropologists such as Mead, but also to historians, philosophers, political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists, as well as to diplomats, politicians, and military leaders. And persons from these fields might well be inclined to approach the question from markedly different points of view that involve different assumptions as well as different bodies of knowledge and experience. Many psychologists, for example, do regard war as an inescapable consequence of man's “pugnacious instincts” while many political scientists, given their specialized pontiff` view, look upon war as "the inevitable concomitant of the development of the state." Mead, by contrast, given her anthropological orientation believes that the problem can be illuminated by examining a wide variety of cultures, especially those: in which warfare does not exist. Each point of view necessarily leads to substantially different claims about the origin of war, and none of the claims can be conclusively proven to be true. Indeed, if conclusive evidence had existed for one view or another, the argument would never have arisen, or it would have been resolved as quickly as the evidence had been discovered. So, like all controversial issues, the question remains open to debate, and anyone involved in such an argument can at best hope to make a persuasive case for a particular viewpoint –a case that will move thoughtful readers to consider that position seriously and possibly even convince them to accept it. As readers of argumentative writing, we in turn should try to be as impartial as the members of a jury. We should try to set aside any biases or prejudices that we might have about one view or another. Then we should weigh all the evidence, logic, claims, and appeals for each viewpoint before arriving at a conclusion about which one we find most convincing. By the same token, as writers of argument we should assume that readers are not likely to be persuaded by a one-sided view of a complex situation. Thus we should be ready to present a case that not only will support our position but will respond to the crucial challenges of views that differ from our own. Both as readers and writers, then, we should strive to understand the balanced methods of persuasion that can be found throughout the broad range of argumentative writing. Argumentative writing so pervades our lives that we may not even recognize it as such in the many brochure and leaflets that come our way, urging us to vote for one candidate rather than another or to support one cause rather than another. Argumentative writing also figures heavily in newspaper editorials, syndicated columns and letters to the editor, which are typically given over to debating the pros and cons of one public issue or another, from local taxes to national defence policies. Argument, of course, is fundamental in the judicial process, providing as it does the basic procedure for conducting all courtroom trials. And it is crucial in the legislative process, for it offers a systematic means of exploring the strengths and weaknesses of different proposed policies, and programs. In a similar way, argument serves the basic aims of the academic world enabling different ideas and theories to be tested by putting them against each other. Whatever the field or profession, argument is an important activity in the advancement of knowledge and society. The broad range of argumentative writing may conveniently be understood by considering the kinds of issues and questions that typically give rise to disagreement and debate. Surely, the most basic sources of controversy and questions of fact- the who, what, when, and where of things, as well as how much. Questions such as these are most commonly at issue in criminal trials. But intense arguments over questions of fact can also develop in an academic or professional field, especially when the facts in question have a significant bearing on the explanation or judgment of a particular subject, body of material, or type of investigation. In "The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon," for example Ron Amundson vigorously challenges the "remarkable and paranormal claims "of several authors who have written about the development of a "group consciousness', among disparate groups of monkeys living on various islands in Japan. Amundson systematically refutes the factual accuracy of their claims, not only because he is interested in getting at the truth about these particular monkeys, but more importantly because as a philosopher of science he is committed to defining, documenting and exposing the flawed "methodology of pseudoscience." So, in a very real sense, the argument in this piece arises over questions of fact as well as questions of how to interpret the facts. Even when there is no question about the facts themselves, there are likely to be arguments about how to explain the facts.Disagreements of this kind abound across the full range of academic and professional fields. And the arguments inevitably arise out of sharply differing points of view on the facts as we have already seen in the case of Mead's piece about the origin of war. As her piece makes clear, everyone appears to agree that war has existed throughout much of human history, and everyone appears to agree that the causes must in some sense be attributable to human beings. But the exact senses in which human beings are responsible remain open to debate. So, Mead and her opponents approach the facts from sharply differing explanatory viewpoints and an argument naturally ensues. Differing viewpoints, of course, ultimately reflect differing beliefs and values. The way we view any particular subject is after all, a matter of personal choice, an outgrowth of what our experience and knowledge have led us to hold as being self-evident. In this sense, beliefs and values are always to some extent at issue in any argumentative situation, even when they remain more or less in the background. But in some cases the conflicting values themselves are so clearly at the heart of the argument that they become the direct focus of the debate. For example in “Why Are Americans Afraid of Dragons?” Ursula Le Guin opposes what she calls the "antifantasy” views of Americans with a sustained argument on behalf of fantastic literature. In order to do so she is compelled to make a case for the value of the imagination itself and for the qualities she attributes to it, such as “the free play of the mind.” In order to support her position here, Le Guin directly challenges one of the major assumptions of the opposing value structure- namely, a belief that the freedom of imaginative activity is at odds with the virtue of discipline. And she challenges this belief in a highly imaginative series of intellectual manoeuvres - first by conceiving of the imagination itself as a "discipline," then by claiming this discipline to be "essential" to 'both art and science" then by defining discipline as a form of training rather than repression, and finally by embodying this idea of discipline in the form of a highly appealing metaphor that links the fruitfulness of a trained peach tree with that of a carefully trained human mind. Thus in the imaginative way that she makes her case, Le Guin enables us to witness the rigorous discipline of the imagination.Le Guin's argument also enables us to see that conflicts over beliefs and values can have an important bearing on questions of policy and planning. Imagine, for example, how our educational system might be designed and operated if it were based on her belief "that the discipline of the imagination may in fact be the essential method or technique of both art and science." Though Le Guin does not map a new education system in her piece, she evidently conceives of fantastic literature and other works of the imagination as being fundamental to the development of healthy human minds. For a clear-cut example of how conflicts over belief lead to debates over policy, you need only look at Lewis Thomas's "The Art of Teaching Science." In the early section of his piece, Thomas challenges conventional beliefs about the certitude of scientific knowledge with his claim that "The conclusions reached in science are always, when looked at closely, far more provisional and tentative than are most of the assumptions arrived at by our colleagues in the humanities." Based on this and related claims, Thomas then proceeds in the later portions of his piece to outline a completely new method of teaching science. Question: The mere presentation of facts is not important; rather
    • A. 

      How they are interpreted is equally important

    • B. 

      How they are accepted by the society is

    • C. 

      How we look at them is

    • D. 

      How we create a social ambience is

Back to Top Back to top