Reading Comprehension_scientific Discovery Passage

Approved & Edited by ProProfs Editorial Team

The editorial team at ProProfs Quizzes consists of a select group of subject experts, trivia writers, and quiz masters who have authored over 10,000 quizzes taken by more than 100 million users. This team includes our in-house seasoned quiz moderators and subject matter experts. Our editorial experts, spread across the world, are rigorously trained using our comprehensive guidelines to ensure that you receive the highest quality quizzes.

Learn about Our Editorial Process

| By Tanmay Shankar

Tanmay Shankar

Community Contributor

Quizzes Created: 491 | Total Attempts: 1,783,262

Questions: 14 | Attempts: 75 | Updated: Aug 28, 2023

Questions

Settings

Create your own Quiz

Reading Comprehension_scientific Discovery Passage - Quiz

Questions and Answers

1.

Directions (Q. 1 – 10): The passage given below is followed by a set of ten questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question. BERKELEY: Today, in the same laboratories where scientists long designed the most destructive weapons on earth, a new kind of non-violent arms research is under way. At Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico, where nuclear warheads were invented and endlessly refined, scientists are experimenting with devices that will temporarily disable soldiers and equipment without permanent harm to either. Proponents of this research call it "non-lethality." They present it as an effort to develop life-conserving, environment-friendly systems for curbing aggression - high technology devices that obviate the use of lethal means while minimising loss of life and damage to the environment. Examples include weapons to keep planes grounded by preventing their engines from starting, instruments to incapacitate enemy soldiers with non-lethal chemicals and electromagnetic pulses (EMP), infra sound waves to disorient civilians for crowd control and psychological operations, and devices to confound sophisticated commandant control systems. They achieve their disabling effects through temporary expedients as anti-traction agents, calmatives, stun guns, and supercaustics. More long-lasting changes are produced by laser weapons, high-powered microwaves, and non-nuclear EMP. Officials at premier weapons laboratories in the US view non-lethal technologies as the perfect growth industry to supplant some of the nuclear research scaled down by the end of the Cold War. This new breed of non-lethal weaponry may sound like the fantasy of a pacifist with a passion for high technology. But it is being touted by individuals and institutions at the opposite end of the political spectrum from the classical non-violent tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Among the most ardent proponents is Ray Cline, a former CIA deputy director. After retiring he established the US Global Strategy Council (USGSC) to promote a "national non-lethality initiative" and other policies to advance US interests. The USGSC has a host of conservative luminaries including President Reagan's hardline UN ambassador, Jean Kirkpatrick, former generals, admirals, and defence secretaries. It formed a "non-lethality policy review group" in 1990 that bent the ears of then vice president Dan Quayle, chief of staff John Sununu, and national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. The group even persuaded the Bush Administration to establish a non-lethality task force under the secretary of defence. The non-lethal idea gained favour in the run-up to the Gulf War, where it was promoted as a means of immobilising Iraqi forces without killing soldiers or civilians. With such high-level endorsements, non -lethality has rapidly gained respectability in the same corridors of power from which advocates of non -violence have been routinely barred. Support from those who traditionally favour aggression says much about how such seemingly benign technologies will ultimately be deployed. Like Star Wars a decade ago, non-lethality exerts a formidable appeal, promising to render the enemy "impotent and obsolete" without the messy and morally repugnant expedient of spilling innocent blood. Both strategies begin with an eminently sensible question: In an age of dazzling inventiveness, is it still necessary to kill others to prevent them from killing us? Are there not less harmful means of preventing harm? These questions demand better answers than thus far has been found. As with Star Wars, the context in which this version of non- lethality is being introduced betrays its fundamentally aggressive nature. Strategic missile defence could only have worked if it replaced rather than reinforced the superpowers' deadly nuclear offences. The underlying motivation of its proponents, however, was to marry offence and defence to forge a more impregnable and intimidating arsenal. As a fundamentally political - rather than strategic - offensive it stole the wind from an emerging anti-nuclear movement, claiming the moral high ground by adopting the rhetoric of pacifism while dispensing with its substance. While some proponents emphasise the strategy's “peacemaking” capabilities, Pentagon Generals stress that non-lethality will "expand force options" and allow commanders to "effect control over people" where lethal force may be politically unpalatable. Advertised not as a replacement for but a reinforcement of lethal force, non-lethality permits the discreet exercise of military power. In addition, its advocates stress that by opening up employment and profit possibilities, non-lethality can soothe a defence industry battered by shrinking military budgets. Is it any wonder then that it has found favour with the hawks? Although its present formulation is flawed and potentially perverse, non-lethality still raises an essential challenge to the scientists of our time: Can human ingenuity prevent harm as effectively as it has been harnessed to inflict it, or is the marriage between high technology and non-violent values inherently a bargain? Question: Which of the following best approximates the concept of “ Non-Lethality”?
- A.
  
  Temporary disabling effects
- B.
  
  Antidote to mercy-killing
- C.
  
  Controlled bloodshed
- D.
  
  Minimising pacifism
Correct Answer
A. Temporary disabling effects

Explanation
The concept of "Non-Lethality" in the passage refers to the development of devices and technologies that can temporarily disable soldiers and equipment without causing permanent harm. These devices achieve their disabling effects through various means such as anti-traction agents, calmatives, stun guns, and supercaustics, as well as laser weapons, high-powered microwaves, and non-nuclear EMP. The aim of non-lethality is to minimize loss of life and damage to the environment while still incapacitating the enemy. Therefore, the best approximation of the concept of "Non-Lethality" is "Temporary disabling effects".

Rate this question:
2.

Passage: BERKELEY: Today, in the same laboratories where scientists long designed the most destructive weapons on earth, a new kind of non-violent arms research is under way. At Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico, where nuclear warheads were invented and endlessly refined, scientists are experimenting with devices that will temporarily disable soldiers and equipment without permanent harm to either. Proponents of this research call it "non-lethality." They present it as an effort to develop life-conserving, environment-friendly systems for curbing aggression - high technology devices that obviate the use of lethal means while minimising loss of life and damage to the environment. Examples include weapons to keep planes grounded by preventing their engines from starting, instruments to incapacitate enemy soldiers with non-lethal chemicals and electromagnetic pulses (EMP), infra sound waves to disorient civilians for crowd control and psychological operations, and devices to confound sophisticated commandant control systems. They achieve their disabling effects through temporary expedients as anti-traction agents, calmatives, stun guns, and supercaustics. More long-lasting changes are produced by laser weapons, high-powered microwaves, and non-nuclear EMP. Officials at premier weapons laboratories in the US view non-lethal technologies as the perfect growth industry to supplant some of the nuclear research scaled down by the end of the Cold War. This new breed of non-lethal weaponry may sound like the fantasy of a pacifist with a passion for high technology. But it is being touted by individuals and institutions at the opposite end of the political spectrum from the classical non-violent tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Among the most ardent proponents is Ray Cline, a former CIA deputy director. After retiring he established the US Global Strategy Council (USGSC) to promote a "national non-lethality initiative" and other policies to advance US interests. The USGSC has a host of conservative luminaries including President Reagan's hardline UN ambassador, Jean Kirkpatrick, former generals, admirals, and defence secretaries. It formed a "non-lethality policy review group" in 1990 that bent the ears of then vice president Dan Quayle, chief of staff John Sununu, and national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. The group even persuaded the Bush Administration to establish a non-lethality task force under the secretary of defence. The non-lethal idea gained favour in the run-up to the Gulf War, where it was promoted as a means of immobilising Iraqi forces without killing soldiers or civilians. With such high-level endorsements, non -lethality has rapidly gained respectability in the same corridors of power from which advocates of non -violence have been routinely barred. Support from those who traditionally favour aggression says much about how such seemingly benign technologies will ultimately be deployed. Like Star Wars a decade ago, non-lethality exerts a formidable appeal, promising to render the enemy "impotent and obsolete" without the messy and morally repugnant expedient of spilling innocent blood. Both strategies begin with an eminently sensible question: In an age of dazzling inventiveness, is it still necessary to kill others to prevent them from killing us? Are there not less harmful means of preventing harm? These questions demand better answers than thus far has been found. As with Star Wars, the context in which this version of non- lethality is being introduced betrays its fundamentally aggressive nature. Strategic missile defence could only have worked if it replaced rather than reinforced the superpowers' deadly nuclear offences. The underlying motivation of its proponents, however, was to marry offence and defence to forge a more impregnable and intimidating arsenal. As a fundamentally political - rather than strategic - offensive it stole the wind from an emerging anti-nuclear movement, claiming the moral high ground by adopting the rhetoric of pacifism while dispensing with its substance. While some proponents emphasise the strategy's “peacemaking” capabilities, Pentagon Generals stress that non-lethality will "expand force options" and allow commanders to "effect control over people" where lethal force may be politically unpalatable. Advertised not as a replacement for but a reinforcement of lethal force, non-lethality permits the discreet exercise of military power. In addition, its advocates stress that by opening up employment and profit possibilities, non-lethality can soothe a defence industry battered by shrinking military budgets. Is it any wonder then that it has found favour with the hawks? Although its present formulation is flawed and potentially perverse, non-lethality still raises an essential challenge to the scientists of our time: Can human ingenuity prevent harm as effectively as it has been harnessed to inflict it, or is the marriage between high technology and non-violent values inherently a bargain? Question: As per the author, Strategic missile defence was:
- A.
  
  Well-intended
- B.
  
  Peace-oriented
- C.
  
  Ambiguous
- D.
  
  Pacifist
Correct Answer
C. Ambiguous

Explanation
The author describes strategic missile defense as ambiguous. The passage states that strategic missile defense was introduced with the intention of replacing the superpowers' deadly nuclear offenses, but the underlying motivation of its proponents was to create a more impregnable and intimidating arsenal. The author suggests that while some proponents emphasize the strategy's "peacemaking" capabilities, Pentagon Generals stress that non-lethality will "expand force options" and allow commanders to "effect control over people" where lethal force may be politically unpalatable. Therefore, the author sees strategic missile defense as having a dual nature, claiming the moral high ground of pacifism while reinforcing lethal force.

Rate this question:
3.

Passage: BERKELEY: Today, in the same laboratories where scientists long designed the most destructive weapons on earth, a new kind of non-violent arms research is under way. At Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico, where nuclear warheads were invented and endlessly refined, scientists are experimenting with devices that will temporarily disable soldiers and equipment without permanent harm to either. Proponents of this research call it "non-lethality." They present it as an effort to develop life-conserving, environment-friendly systems for curbing aggression - high technology devices that obviate the use of lethal means while minimising loss of life and damage to the environment. Examples include weapons to keep planes grounded by preventing their engines from starting, instruments to incapacitate enemy soldiers with non-lethal chemicals and electromagnetic pulses (EMP), infra sound waves to disorient civilians for crowd control and psychological operations, and devices to confound sophisticated commandant control systems. They achieve their disabling effects through temporary expedients as anti-traction agents, calmatives, stun guns, and supercaustics. More long-lasting changes are produced by laser weapons, high-powered microwaves, and non-nuclear EMP. Officials at premier weapons laboratories in the US view non-lethal technologies as the perfect growth industry to supplant some of the nuclear research scaled down by the end of the Cold War. This new breed of non-lethal weaponry may sound like the fantasy of a pacifist with a passion for high technology. But it is being touted by individuals and institutions at the opposite end of the political spectrum from the classical non-violent tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Among the most ardent proponents is Ray Cline, a former CIA deputy director. After retiring he established the US Global Strategy Council (USGSC) to promote a "national non-lethality initiative" and other policies to advance US interests. The USGSC has a host of conservative luminaries including President Reagan's hardline UN ambassador, Jean Kirkpatrick, former generals, admirals, and defence secretaries. It formed a "non-lethality policy review group" in 1990 that bent the ears of then vice president Dan Quayle, chief of staff John Sununu, and national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. The group even persuaded the Bush Administration to establish a non-lethality task force under the secretary of defence. The non-lethal idea gained favour in the run-up to the Gulf War, where it was promoted as a means of immobilising Iraqi forces without killing soldiers or civilians. With such high-level endorsements, non -lethality has rapidly gained respectability in the same corridors of power from which advocates of non -violence have been routinely barred. Support from those who traditionally favour aggression says much about how such seemingly benign technologies will ultimately be deployed. Like Star Wars a decade ago, non-lethality exerts a formidable appeal, promising to render the enemy "impotent and obsolete" without the messy and morally repugnant expedient of spilling innocent blood. Both strategies begin with an eminently sensible question: In an age of dazzling inventiveness, is it still necessary to kill others to prevent them from killing us? Are there not less harmful means of preventing harm? These questions demand better answers than thus far has been found. As with Star Wars, the context in which this version of non- lethality is being introduced betrays its fundamentally aggressive nature. Strategic missile defence could only have worked if it replaced rather than reinforced the superpowers' deadly nuclear offences. The underlying motivation of its proponents, however, was to marry offence and defence to forge a more impregnable and intimidating arsenal. As a fundamentally political - rather than strategic - offensive it stole the wind from an emerging anti-nuclear movement, claiming the moral high ground by adopting the rhetoric of pacifism while dispensing with its substance. While some proponents emphasise the strategy's “peacemaking” capabilities, Pentagon Generals stress that non-lethality will "expand force options" and allow commanders to "effect control over people" where lethal force may be politically unpalatable. Advertised not as a replacement for but a reinforcement of lethal force, non-lethality permits the discreet exercise of military power. In addition, its advocates stress that by opening up employment and profit possibilities, non-lethality can soothe a defence industry battered by shrinking military budgets. Is it any wonder then that it has found favour with the hawks? Although its present formulation is flawed and potentially perverse, non-lethality still raises an essential challenge to the scientists of our time: Can human ingenuity prevent harm as effectively as it has been harnessed to inflict it, or is the marriage between high technology and non-violent values inherently a bargain? Question: Ray Cline is:
- A.
  
  CIA deputy director
- B.
  
  Opponent of non-lethality
- C.
  
  Secretary of State
- D.
  
  Supporter of non-lethality
Correct Answer
D. Supporter of non-lethality

Explanation
Ray Cline is a supporter of non-lethality. The passage mentions that Ray Cline, a former CIA deputy director, established the US Global Strategy Council (USGSC) to promote a "national non-lethality initiative" and other policies to advance US interests. The USGSC has conservative members and has influenced high-level officials in the US government to establish a non-lethality task force. This indicates that Ray Cline supports the development and implementation of non-lethal technologies for military purposes.

Rate this question:
4.

Passage: BERKELEY: Today, in the same laboratories where scientists long designed the most destructive weapons on earth, a new kind of non-violent arms research is under way. At Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico, where nuclear warheads were invented and endlessly refined, scientists are experimenting with devices that will temporarily disable soldiers and equipment without permanent harm to either. Proponents of this research call it "non-lethality." They present it as an effort to develop life-conserving, environment-friendly systems for curbing aggression - high technology devices that obviate the use of lethal means while minimising loss of life and damage to the environment. Examples include weapons to keep planes grounded by preventing their engines from starting, instruments to incapacitate enemy soldiers with non-lethal chemicals and electromagnetic pulses (EMP), infra sound waves to disorient civilians for crowd control and psychological operations, and devices to confound sophisticated commandant control systems. They achieve their disabling effects through temporary expedients as anti-traction agents, calmatives, stun guns, and supercaustics. More long-lasting changes are produced by laser weapons, high-powered microwaves, and non-nuclear EMP. Officials at premier weapons laboratories in the US view non-lethal technologies as the perfect growth industry to supplant some of the nuclear research scaled down by the end of the Cold War. This new breed of non-lethal weaponry may sound like the fantasy of a pacifist with a passion for high technology. But it is being touted by individuals and institutions at the opposite end of the political spectrum from the classical non-violent tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Among the most ardent proponents is Ray Cline, a former CIA deputy director. After retiring he established the US Global Strategy Council (USGSC) to promote a "national non-lethality initiative" and other policies to advance US interests. The USGSC has a host of conservative luminaries including President Reagan's hardline UN ambassador, Jean Kirkpatrick, former generals, admirals, and defence secretaries. It formed a "non-lethality policy review group" in 1990 that bent the ears of then vice president Dan Quayle, chief of staff John Sununu, and national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. The group even persuaded the Bush Administration to establish a non-lethality task force under the secretary of defence. The non-lethal idea gained favour in the run-up to the Gulf War, where it was promoted as a means of immobilising Iraqi forces without killing soldiers or civilians. With such high-level endorsements, non -lethality has rapidly gained respectability in the same corridors of power from which advocates of non -violence have been routinely barred. Support from those who traditionally favour aggression says much about how such seemingly benign technologies will ultimately be deployed. Like Star Wars a decade ago, non-lethality exerts a formidable appeal, promising to render the enemy "impotent and obsolete" without the messy and morally repugnant expedient of spilling innocent blood. Both strategies begin with an eminently sensible question: In an age of dazzling inventiveness, is it still necessary to kill others to prevent them from killing us? Are there not less harmful means of preventing harm? These questions demand better answers than thus far has been found. As with Star Wars, the context in which this version of non- lethality is being introduced betrays its fundamentally aggressive nature. Strategic missile defence could only have worked if it replaced rather than reinforced the superpowers' deadly nuclear offences. The underlying motivation of its proponents, however, was to marry offence and defence to forge a more impregnable and intimidating arsenal. As a fundamentally political - rather than strategic - offensive it stole the wind from an emerging anti-nuclear movement, claiming the moral high ground by adopting the rhetoric of pacifism while dispensing with its substance. While some proponents emphasise the strategy's “peacemaking” capabilities, Pentagon Generals stress that non-lethality will "expand force options" and allow commanders to "effect control over people" where lethal force may be politically unpalatable. Advertised not as a replacement for but a reinforcement of lethal force, non-lethality permits the discreet exercise of military power. In addition, its advocates stress that by opening up employment and profit possibilities, non-lethality can soothe a defence industry battered by shrinking military budgets. Is it any wonder then that it has found favour with the hawks? Although its present formulation is flawed and potentially perverse, non-lethality still raises an essential challenge to the scientists of our time: Can human ingenuity prevent harm as effectively as it has been harnessed to inflict it, or is the marriage between high technology and non-violent values inherently a bargain? Question: The non-lethality concept was used in the Gulf war
- A.
  
  True
- B.
  
  False
- C.
  
  Not stated explicitly
- D.
  
  None
Correct Answer
C. Not stated explicitly

Explanation
The passage does not explicitly state whether the non-lethality concept was used in the Gulf war. It mentions that the idea of non-lethality gained favor in the run-up to the Gulf War and was promoted as a means of immobilizing Iraqi forces without killing soldiers or civilians. However, it does not provide any information on whether this concept was actually implemented during the war. Therefore, the answer "Not stated explicitly" is correct.

Rate this question:
5.

Passage: BERKELEY: Today, in the same laboratories where scientists long designed the most destructive weapons on earth, a new kind of non-violent arms research is under way. At Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico, where nuclear warheads were invented and endlessly refined, scientists are experimenting with devices that will temporarily disable soldiers and equipment without permanent harm to either. Proponents of this research call it "non-lethality." They present it as an effort to develop life-conserving, environment-friendly systems for curbing aggression - high technology devices that obviate the use of lethal means while minimising loss of life and damage to the environment. Examples include weapons to keep planes grounded by preventing their engines from starting, instruments to incapacitate enemy soldiers with non-lethal chemicals and electromagnetic pulses (EMP), infra sound waves to disorient civilians for crowd control and psychological operations, and devices to confound sophisticated commandant control systems. They achieve their disabling effects through temporary expedients as anti-traction agents, calmatives, stun guns, and supercaustics. More long-lasting changes are produced by laser weapons, high-powered microwaves, and non-nuclear EMP. Officials at premier weapons laboratories in the US view non-lethal technologies as the perfect growth industry to supplant some of the nuclear research scaled down by the end of the Cold War. This new breed of non-lethal weaponry may sound like the fantasy of a pacifist with a passion for high technology. But it is being touted by individuals and institutions at the opposite end of the political spectrum from the classical non-violent tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Among the most ardent proponents is Ray Cline, a former CIA deputy director. After retiring he established the US Global Strategy Council (USGSC) to promote a "national non-lethality initiative" and other policies to advance US interests. The USGSC has a host of conservative luminaries including President Reagan's hardline UN ambassador, Jean Kirkpatrick, former generals, admirals, and defence secretaries. It formed a "non-lethality policy review group" in 1990 that bent the ears of then vice president Dan Quayle, chief of staff John Sununu, and national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. The group even persuaded the Bush Administration to establish a non-lethality task force under the secretary of defence. The non-lethal idea gained favour in the run-up to the Gulf War, where it was promoted as a means of immobilising Iraqi forces without killing soldiers or civilians. With such high-level endorsements, non -lethality has rapidly gained respectability in the same corridors of power from which advocates of non -violence have been routinely barred. Support from those who traditionally favour aggression says much about how such seemingly benign technologies will ultimately be deployed. Like Star Wars a decade ago, non-lethality exerts a formidable appeal, promising to render the enemy "impotent and obsolete" without the messy and morally repugnant expedient of spilling innocent blood. Both strategies begin with an eminently sensible question: In an age of dazzling inventiveness, is it still necessary to kill others to prevent them from killing us? Are there not less harmful means of preventing harm? These questions demand better answers than thus far has been found. As with Star Wars, the context in which this version of non- lethality is being introduced betrays its fundamentally aggressive nature. Strategic missile defence could only have worked if it replaced rather than reinforced the superpowers' deadly nuclear offences. The underlying motivation of its proponents, however, was to marry offence and defence to forge a more impregnable and intimidating arsenal. As a fundamentally political - rather than strategic - offensive it stole the wind from an emerging anti-nuclear movement, claiming the moral high ground by adopting the rhetoric of pacifism while dispensing with its substance. While some proponents emphasise the strategy's “peacemaking” capabilities, Pentagon Generals stress that non-lethality will "expand force options" and allow commanders to "effect control over people" where lethal force may be politically unpalatable. Advertised not as a replacement for but a reinforcement of lethal force, non-lethality permits the discreet exercise of military power. In addition, its advocates stress that by opening up employment and profit possibilities, non-lethality can soothe a defence industry battered by shrinking military budgets. Is it any wonder then that it has found favour with the hawks? Although its present formulation is flawed and potentially perverse, non-lethality still raises an essential challenge to the scientists of our time: Can human ingenuity prevent harm as effectively as it has been harnessed to inflict it, or is the marriage between high technology and non-violent values inherently a bargain? Question: All of the following are features of Non-lethality except:
- A.
  
  It is life-conserving
- B.
  
  It is environment friendly
- C.
  
  It is based on simple technologies
- D.
  
  It has temporary effects
Correct Answer
C. It is based on simple technologies

Explanation
The passage states that non-lethality involves experimenting with devices that temporarily disable soldiers and equipment without permanent harm. It also mentions that non-lethal technologies include weapons, instruments, and devices that achieve their disabling effects through various means such as anti-traction agents, calmatives, stun guns, laser weapons, high-powered microwaves, and non-nuclear EMP. Therefore, the statement that non-lethality is based on simple technologies is not supported by the passage.

Rate this question:
6.

Passage: BERKELEY: Today, in the same laboratories where scientists long designed the most destructive weapons on earth, a new kind of non-violent arms research is under way. At Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico, where nuclear warheads were invented and endlessly refined, scientists are experimenting with devices that will temporarily disable soldiers and equipment without permanent harm to either. Proponents of this research call it "non-lethality." They present it as an effort to develop life-conserving, environment-friendly systems for curbing aggression - high technology devices that obviate the use of lethal means while minimising loss of life and damage to the environment. Examples include weapons to keep planes grounded by preventing their engines from starting, instruments to incapacitate enemy soldiers with non-lethal chemicals and electromagnetic pulses (EMP), infra sound waves to disorient civilians for crowd control and psychological operations, and devices to confound sophisticated commandant control systems. They achieve their disabling effects through temporary expedients as anti-traction agents, calmatives, stun guns, and supercaustics. More long-lasting changes are produced by laser weapons, high-powered microwaves, and non-nuclear EMP. Officials at premier weapons laboratories in the US view non-lethal technologies as the perfect growth industry to supplant some of the nuclear research scaled down by the end of the Cold War. This new breed of non-lethal weaponry may sound like the fantasy of a pacifist with a passion for high technology. But it is being touted by individuals and institutions at the opposite end of the political spectrum from the classical non-violent tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Among the most ardent proponents is Ray Cline, a former CIA deputy director. After retiring he established the US Global Strategy Council (USGSC) to promote a "national non-lethality initiative" and other policies to advance US interests. The USGSC has a host of conservative luminaries including President Reagan's hardline UN ambassador, Jean Kirkpatrick, former generals, admirals, and defence secretaries. It formed a "non-lethality policy review group" in 1990 that bent the ears of then vice president Dan Quayle, chief of staff John Sununu, and national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. The group even persuaded the Bush Administration to establish a non-lethality task force under the secretary of defence. The non-lethal idea gained favour in the run-up to the Gulf War, where it was promoted as a means of immobilising Iraqi forces without killing soldiers or civilians. With such high-level endorsements, non -lethality has rapidly gained respectability in the same corridors of power from which advocates of non -violence have been routinely barred. Support from those who traditionally favour aggression says much about how such seemingly benign technologies will ultimately be deployed. Like Star Wars a decade ago, non-lethality exerts a formidable appeal, promising to render the enemy "impotent and obsolete" without the messy and morally repugnant expedient of spilling innocent blood. Both strategies begin with an eminently sensible question: In an age of dazzling inventiveness, is it still necessary to kill others to prevent them from killing us? Are there not less harmful means of preventing harm? These questions demand better answers than thus far has been found. As with Star Wars, the context in which this version of non- lethality is being introduced betrays its fundamentally aggressive nature. Strategic missile defence could only have worked if it replaced rather than reinforced the superpowers' deadly nuclear offences. The underlying motivation of its proponents, however, was to marry offence and defence to forge a more impregnable and intimidating arsenal. As a fundamentally political - rather than strategic - offensive it stole the wind from an emerging anti-nuclear movement, claiming the moral high ground by adopting the rhetoric of pacifism while dispensing with its substance. While some proponents emphasise the strategy's “peacemaking” capabilities, Pentagon Generals stress that non-lethality will "expand force options" and allow commanders to "effect control over people" where lethal force may be politically unpalatable. Advertised not as a replacement for but a reinforcement of lethal force, non-lethality permits the discreet exercise of military power. In addition, its advocates stress that by opening up employment and profit possibilities, non-lethality can soothe a defence industry battered by shrinking military budgets. Is it any wonder then that it has found favour with the hawks? Although its present formulation is flawed and potentially perverse, non-lethality still raises an essential challenge to the scientists of our time: Can human ingenuity prevent harm as effectively as it has been harnessed to inflict it, or is the marriage between high technology and non-violent values inherently a bargain? Question: Pentagon generals view non-lethality as a/an:
- A.
  
  Alternative to lethal force
- B.
  
  Costly affair
- C.
  
  Politically unpalatable option
- D.
  
  Reinforcement of lethality
Correct Answer
D. Reinforcement of lethality

Explanation
Pentagon generals view non-lethality as a reinforcement of lethality. This means that they see non-lethal weapons as a way to expand their force options and maintain control over people in situations where using lethal force may be politically unpalatable. They do not see non-lethality as a replacement for lethal force but rather as a complementary tool to enhance their military power. This perspective aligns with their goal of maintaining a strong and intimidating arsenal while also claiming the moral high ground by adopting the rhetoric of pacifism.

Rate this question:
7.

Passage: BERKELEY: Today, in the same laboratories where scientists long designed the most destructive weapons on earth, a new kind of non-violent arms research is under way. At Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico, where nuclear warheads were invented and endlessly refined, scientists are experimenting with devices that will temporarily disable soldiers and equipment without permanent harm to either. Proponents of this research call it "non-lethality." They present it as an effort to develop life-conserving, environment-friendly systems for curbing aggression - high technology devices that obviate the use of lethal means while minimising loss of life and damage to the environment. Examples include weapons to keep planes grounded by preventing their engines from starting, instruments to incapacitate enemy soldiers with non-lethal chemicals and electromagnetic pulses (EMP), infra sound waves to disorient civilians for crowd control and psychological operations, and devices to confound sophisticated commandant control systems. They achieve their disabling effects through temporary expedients as anti-traction agents, calmatives, stun guns, and supercaustics. More long-lasting changes are produced by laser weapons, high-powered microwaves, and non-nuclear EMP. Officials at premier weapons laboratories in the US view non-lethal technologies as the perfect growth industry to supplant some of the nuclear research scaled down by the end of the Cold War. This new breed of non-lethal weaponry may sound like the fantasy of a pacifist with a passion for high technology. But it is being touted by individuals and institutions at the opposite end of the political spectrum from the classical non-violent tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Among the most ardent proponents is Ray Cline, a former CIA deputy director. After retiring he established the US Global Strategy Council (USGSC) to promote a "national non-lethality initiative" and other policies to advance US interests. The USGSC has a host of conservative luminaries including President Reagan's hardline UN ambassador, Jean Kirkpatrick, former generals, admirals, and defence secretaries. It formed a "non-lethality policy review group" in 1990 that bent the ears of then vice president Dan Quayle, chief of staff John Sununu, and national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. The group even persuaded the Bush Administration to establish a non-lethality task force under the secretary of defence. The non-lethal idea gained favour in the run-up to the Gulf War, where it was promoted as a means of immobilising Iraqi forces without killing soldiers or civilians. With such high-level endorsements, non -lethality has rapidly gained respectability in the same corridors of power from which advocates of non -violence have been routinely barred. Support from those who traditionally favour aggression says much about how such seemingly benign technologies will ultimately be deployed. Like Star Wars a decade ago, non-lethality exerts a formidable appeal, promising to render the enemy "impotent and obsolete" without the messy and morally repugnant expedient of spilling innocent blood. Both strategies begin with an eminently sensible question: In an age of dazzling inventiveness, is it still necessary to kill others to prevent them from killing us? Are there not less harmful means of preventing harm? These questions demand better answers than thus far has been found. As with Star Wars, the context in which this version of non- lethality is being introduced betrays its fundamentally aggressive nature. Strategic missile defence could only have worked if it replaced rather than reinforced the superpowers' deadly nuclear offences. The underlying motivation of its proponents, however, was to marry offence and defence to forge a more impregnable and intimidating arsenal. As a fundamentally political - rather than strategic - offensive it stole the wind from an emerging anti-nuclear movement, claiming the moral high ground by adopting the rhetoric of pacifism while dispensing with its substance. While some proponents emphasise the strategy's “peacemaking” capabilities, Pentagon Generals stress that non-lethality will "expand force options" and allow commanders to "effect control over people" where lethal force may be politically unpalatable. Advertised not as a replacement for but a reinforcement of lethal force, non-lethality permits the discreet exercise of military power. In addition, its advocates stress that by opening up employment and profit possibilities, non-lethality can soothe a defence industry battered by shrinking military budgets. Is it any wonder then that it has found favour with the hawks? Although its present formulation is flawed and potentially perverse, non-lethality still raises an essential challenge to the scientists of our time: Can human ingenuity prevent harm as effectively as it has been harnessed to inflict it, or is the marriage between high technology and non-violent values inherently a bargain? Question: Non-lethality has found favour with the Military generals because:
- A.
  
  It can help the shrinking defence industry
- B.
  
  It is very costly
- C.
  
  It is very "human"
- D.
  
  It can expand the military budget
Correct Answer
D. It can expand the military budget

Explanation
Non-lethality has found favor with the military generals because it can expand the military budget. The passage mentions that non-lethality allows commanders to "effect control over people" where lethal force may be politically unpalatable, and it is advertised as a reinforcement of lethal force. Additionally, the advocates of non-lethality stress that it can soothe a defense industry battered by shrinking military budgets by opening up employment and profit possibilities. This suggests that the military generals see non-lethality as a way to allocate more funds to the military and maintain a strong defense industry.

Rate this question:
8.

Passage: BERKELEY: Today, in the same laboratories where scientists long designed the most destructive weapons on earth, a new kind of non-violent arms research is under way. At Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico, where nuclear warheads were invented and endlessly refined, scientists are experimenting with devices that will temporarily disable soldiers and equipment without permanent harm to either. Proponents of this research call it "non-lethality." They present it as an effort to develop life-conserving, environment-friendly systems for curbing aggression - high technology devices that obviate the use of lethal means while minimising loss of life and damage to the environment. Examples include weapons to keep planes grounded by preventing their engines from starting, instruments to incapacitate enemy soldiers with non-lethal chemicals and electromagnetic pulses (EMP), infra sound waves to disorient civilians for crowd control and psychological operations, and devices to confound sophisticated commandant control systems. They achieve their disabling effects through temporary expedients as anti-traction agents, calmatives, stun guns, and supercaustics. More long-lasting changes are produced by laser weapons, high-powered microwaves, and non-nuclear EMP. Officials at premier weapons laboratories in the US view non-lethal technologies as the perfect growth industry to supplant some of the nuclear research scaled down by the end of the Cold War. This new breed of non-lethal weaponry may sound like the fantasy of a pacifist with a passion for high technology. But it is being touted by individuals and institutions at the opposite end of the political spectrum from the classical non-violent tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Among the most ardent proponents is Ray Cline, a former CIA deputy director. After retiring he established the US Global Strategy Council (USGSC) to promote a "national non-lethality initiative" and other policies to advance US interests. The USGSC has a host of conservative luminaries including President Reagan's hardline UN ambassador, Jean Kirkpatrick, former generals, admirals, and defence secretaries. It formed a "non-lethality policy review group" in 1990 that bent the ears of then vice president Dan Quayle, chief of staff John Sununu, and national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. The group even persuaded the Bush Administration to establish a non-lethality task force under the secretary of defence. The non-lethal idea gained favour in the run-up to the Gulf War, where it was promoted as a means of immobilising Iraqi forces without killing soldiers or civilians. With such high-level endorsements, non -lethality has rapidly gained respectability in the same corridors of power from which advocates of non -violence have been routinely barred. Support from those who traditionally favour aggression says much about how such seemingly benign technologies will ultimately be deployed. Like Star Wars a decade ago, non-lethality exerts a formidable appeal, promising to render the enemy "impotent and obsolete" without the messy and morally repugnant expedient of spilling innocent blood. Both strategies begin with an eminently sensible question: In an age of dazzling inventiveness, is it still necessary to kill others to prevent them from killing us? Are there not less harmful means of preventing harm? These questions demand better answers than thus far has been found. As with Star Wars, the context in which this version of non- lethality is being introduced betrays its fundamentally aggressive nature. Strategic missile defence could only have worked if it replaced rather than reinforced the superpowers' deadly nuclear offences. The underlying motivation of its proponents, however, was to marry offence and defence to forge a more impregnable and intimidating arsenal. As a fundamentally political - rather than strategic - offensive it stole the wind from an emerging anti-nuclear movement, claiming the moral high ground by adopting the rhetoric of pacifism while dispensing with its substance. While some proponents emphasise the strategy's “peacemaking” capabilities, Pentagon Generals stress that non-lethality will "expand force options" and allow commanders to "effect control over people" where lethal force may be politically unpalatable. Advertised not as a replacement for but a reinforcement of lethal force, non-lethality permits the discreet exercise of military power. In addition, its advocates stress that by opening up employment and profit possibilities, non-lethality can soothe a defence industry battered by shrinking military budgets. Is it any wonder then that it has found favour with the hawks? Although its present formulation is flawed and potentially perverse, non-lethality still raises an essential challenge to the scientists of our time: Can human ingenuity prevent harm as effectively as it has been harnessed to inflict it, or is the marriage between high technology and non-violent values inherently a bargain? Question: EMP stands for:
- A.
  
  Extra-marine pulse
- B.
  
  Electromagnetic pass
- C.
  
  Electromagnetic pulse
- D.
  
  Ex-motor pulse
Correct Answer
C. Electromagnetic pulse

Explanation
An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a burst of electromagnetic radiation that can disrupt or damage electronic devices and systems. In the context of the passage, EMP is mentioned as one of the non-lethal technologies being experimented with to temporarily disable soldiers and equipment without causing permanent harm. It is presented as a means of incapacitating enemy soldiers and disrupting command and control systems. The passage suggests that non-lethal technologies, including EMP, are being developed as an alternative to lethal means of warfare, with the aim of minimizing loss of life and damage to the environment.

Rate this question:
9.

Passage: BERKELEY: Today, in the same laboratories where scientists long designed the most destructive weapons on earth, a new kind of non-violent arms research is under way. At Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico, where nuclear warheads were invented and endlessly refined, scientists are experimenting with devices that will temporarily disable soldiers and equipment without permanent harm to either. Proponents of this research call it "non-lethality." They present it as an effort to develop life-conserving, environment-friendly systems for curbing aggression - high technology devices that obviate the use of lethal means while minimising loss of life and damage to the environment. Examples include weapons to keep planes grounded by preventing their engines from starting, instruments to incapacitate enemy soldiers with non-lethal chemicals and electromagnetic pulses (EMP), infra sound waves to disorient civilians for crowd control and psychological operations, and devices to confound sophisticated commandant control systems. They achieve their disabling effects through temporary expedients as anti-traction agents, calmatives, stun guns, and supercaustics. More long-lasting changes are produced by laser weapons, high-powered microwaves, and non-nuclear EMP. Officials at premier weapons laboratories in the US view non-lethal technologies as the perfect growth industry to supplant some of the nuclear research scaled down by the end of the Cold War. This new breed of non-lethal weaponry may sound like the fantasy of a pacifist with a passion for high technology. But it is being touted by individuals and institutions at the opposite end of the political spectrum from the classical non-violent tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Among the most ardent proponents is Ray Cline, a former CIA deputy director. After retiring he established the US Global Strategy Council (USGSC) to promote a "national non-lethality initiative" and other policies to advance US interests. The USGSC has a host of conservative luminaries including President Reagan's hardline UN ambassador, Jean Kirkpatrick, former generals, admirals, and defence secretaries. It formed a "non-lethality policy review group" in 1990 that bent the ears of then vice president Dan Quayle, chief of staff John Sununu, and national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. The group even persuaded the Bush Administration to establish a non-lethality task force under the secretary of defence. The non-lethal idea gained favour in the run-up to the Gulf War, where it was promoted as a means of immobilising Iraqi forces without killing soldiers or civilians. With such high-level endorsements, non -lethality has rapidly gained respectability in the same corridors of power from which advocates of non -violence have been routinely barred. Support from those who traditionally favour aggression says much about how such seemingly benign technologies will ultimately be deployed. Like Star Wars a decade ago, non-lethality exerts a formidable appeal, promising to render the enemy "impotent and obsolete" without the messy and morally repugnant expedient of spilling innocent blood. Both strategies begin with an eminently sensible question: In an age of dazzling inventiveness, is it still necessary to kill others to prevent them from killing us? Are there not less harmful means of preventing harm? These questions demand better answers than thus far has been found. As with Star Wars, the context in which this version of non- lethality is being introduced betrays its fundamentally aggressive nature. Strategic missile defence could only have worked if it replaced rather than reinforced the superpowers' deadly nuclear offences. The underlying motivation of its proponents, however, was to marry offence and defence to forge a more impregnable and intimidating arsenal. As a fundamentally political - rather than strategic - offensive it stole the wind from an emerging anti-nuclear movement, claiming the moral high ground by adopting the rhetoric of pacifism while dispensing with its substance. While some proponents emphasise the strategy's “peacemaking” capabilities, Pentagon Generals stress that non-lethality will "expand force options" and allow commanders to "effect control over people" where lethal force may be politically unpalatable. Advertised not as a replacement for but a reinforcement of lethal force, non-lethality permits the discreet exercise of military power. In addition, its advocates stress that by opening up employment and profit possibilities, non-lethality can soothe a defence industry battered by shrinking military budgets. Is it any wonder then that it has found favour with the hawks? Although its present formulation is flawed and potentially perverse, non-lethality still raises an essential challenge to the scientists of our time: Can human ingenuity prevent harm as effectively as it has been harnessed to inflict it, or is the marriage between high technology and non-violent values inherently a bargain? Question: Nuclear warheads were invented at:
- A.
  
  Las Vegas
- B.
  
  Washington
- C.
  
  Los Alamos
- D.
  
  Karachi
Correct Answer
C. Los Alamos

Explanation
The passage states that nuclear warheads were invented and endlessly refined at Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico. Therefore, the correct answer is Los Alamos.

Rate this question:
10.

Passage: BERKELEY: Today, in the same laboratories where scientists long designed the most destructive weapons on earth, a new kind of non-violent arms research is under way. At Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico, where nuclear warheads were invented and endlessly refined, scientists are experimenting with devices that will temporarily disable soldiers and equipment without permanent harm to either. Proponents of this research call it "non-lethality." They present it as an effort to develop life-conserving, environment-friendly systems for curbing aggression - high technology devices that obviate the use of lethal means while minimising loss of life and damage to the environment. Examples include weapons to keep planes grounded by preventing their engines from starting, instruments to incapacitate enemy soldiers with non-lethal chemicals and electromagnetic pulses (EMP), infra sound waves to disorient civilians for crowd control and psychological operations, and devices to confound sophisticated commandant control systems. They achieve their disabling effects through temporary expedients as anti-traction agents, calmatives, stun guns, and supercaustics. More long-lasting changes are produced by laser weapons, high-powered microwaves, and non-nuclear EMP. Officials at premier weapons laboratories in the US view non-lethal technologies as the perfect growth industry to supplant some of the nuclear research scaled down by the end of the Cold War. This new breed of non-lethal weaponry may sound like the fantasy of a pacifist with a passion for high technology. But it is being touted by individuals and institutions at the opposite end of the political spectrum from the classical non-violent tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Among the most ardent proponents is Ray Cline, a former CIA deputy director. After retiring he established the US Global Strategy Council (USGSC) to promote a "national non-lethality initiative" and other policies to advance US interests. The USGSC has a host of conservative luminaries including President Reagan's hardline UN ambassador, Jean Kirkpatrick, former generals, admirals, and defence secretaries. It formed a "non-lethality policy review group" in 1990 that bent the ears of then vice president Dan Quayle, chief of staff John Sununu, and national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. The group even persuaded the Bush Administration to establish a non-lethality task force under the secretary of defence. The non-lethal idea gained favour in the run-up to the Gulf War, where it was promoted as a means of immobilising Iraqi forces without killing soldiers or civilians. With such high-level endorsements, non -lethality has rapidly gained respectability in the same corridors of power from which advocates of non -violence have been routinely barred. Support from those who traditionally favour aggression says much about how such seemingly benign technologies will ultimately be deployed. Like Star Wars a decade ago, non-lethality exerts a formidable appeal, promising to render the enemy "impotent and obsolete" without the messy and morally repugnant expedient of spilling innocent blood. Both strategies begin with an eminently sensible question: In an age of dazzling inventiveness, is it still necessary to kill others to prevent them from killing us? Are there not less harmful means of preventing harm? These questions demand better answers than thus far has been found. As with Star Wars, the context in which this version of non- lethality is being introduced betrays its fundamentally aggressive nature. Strategic missile defence could only have worked if it replaced rather than reinforced the superpowers' deadly nuclear offences. The underlying motivation of its proponents, however, was to marry offence and defence to forge a more impregnable and intimidating arsenal. As a fundamentally political - rather than strategic - offensive it stole the wind from an emerging anti-nuclear movement, claiming the moral high ground by adopting the rhetoric of pacifism while dispensing with its substance. While some proponents emphasise the strategy's “peacemaking” capabilities, Pentagon Generals stress that non-lethality will "expand force options" and allow commanders to "effect control over people" where lethal force may be politically unpalatable. Advertised not as a replacement for but a reinforcement of lethal force, non-lethality permits the discreet exercise of military power. In addition, its advocates stress that by opening up employment and profit possibilities, non-lethality can soothe a defence industry battered by shrinking military budgets. Is it any wonder then that it has found favour with the hawks? Although its present formulation is flawed and potentially perverse, non-lethality still raises an essential challenge to the scientists of our time: Can human ingenuity prevent harm as effectively as it has been harnessed to inflict it, or is the marriage between high technology and non-violent values inherently a bargain? Question: The basic aim of the creators of the Strategic missile defence was to:
- A.
  
  Increase the lethal power
- B.
  
  Decrease the lethal power
- C.
  
  Reduce the risk of war
- D.
  
  Improve relations
Correct Answer
A. Increase the lethal power

Explanation
The passage states that the underlying motivation of the creators of the Strategic missile defense was to marry offense and defense to forge a more impregnable and intimidating arsenal. It suggests that the creators wanted to reinforce lethal force rather than replace it. This implies that the basic aim of the creators was to increase the lethal power rather than decrease it, reduce the risk of war, or improve relations.

Rate this question:
11.

Directions (Q. 11 – 14): The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question. Scientists searching for extraterrestrials by listening for their radio transmission face the formidable task of looking at millions of stars before they can have any probability of success, and this supposes the unlikely optimum situation in which the “others” have high powered signals aimed continuously toward Earth. Most current approaches to the search for extraterrestrial intelligences (SETI) are therefore based on observing a large number of stars simultaneously, in the hope of detecting very powerful transmissions. The choice of frequencies at which to listen is ingenious. The absorption and reemission of radiation by gases in the Earth’s atmosphere creates a wall of noise in the radio spectrum, which is difficult for radio telescopes to penetrate. There is a quiet area, however, between 1,000 and 10,000 megahertz (MHz). This range includes the 1,420 MHz band, one of the frequencies at which hydrogen, the major constituent of the universe, emits radiation. At 1,662 MHz the frequency range also contains an emission frequency of the hydroxyl ion-a hydrogen atom bound to an oxygen atom. Between these two frequencies is the quietest part of the radio spectrum as seen from the Earth’s surface. Since this radio window is bound by constituents of the water molecule, it has been poetically dubbed the “water hole”-the traditional meeting place of different species. It seems reasonable to suppose that intelligent beings biologically similar to us would follow the same logic and choose to broadcast in this region. Question: The primary purpose of the passage is to
- A.
  
  Speculate on the existence of extraterrestrial life
- B.
  
  Promote the scientific search for extraterrestrial life
- C.
  
  Discuss the search for extraterrestrials through the monitoring of radio waves from space
- D.
  
  Define the radio frequencies at which scientist broadcast signals into space
Correct Answer
C. Discuss the search for extraterrestrials through the monitoring of radio waves from space

Explanation
The passage discusses the search for extraterrestrials through the monitoring of radio waves from space. It explains the challenges faced by scientists in searching for extraterrestrial life and the current approaches used in the search, such as observing a large number of stars simultaneously and choosing specific frequencies to listen to. It also mentions the concept of the "water hole" as a potential meeting place for different species, suggesting that intelligent beings may choose to broadcast in this region. Therefore, the primary purpose of the passage is to discuss the search for extraterrestrials through the monitoring of radio waves from space.

Rate this question:
12.

Passage: Scientists searching for extraterrestrials by listening for their radio transmission face the formidable task of looking at millions of stars before they can have any probability of success, and this supposes the unlikely optimum situation in which the “others” have high powered signals aimed continuously toward Earth. Most current approaches to the search for extraterrestrial intelligences (SETI) are therefore based on observing a large number of stars simultaneously, in the hope of detecting very powerful transmissions. The choice of frequencies at which to listen is ingenious. The absorption and reemission of radiation by gases in the Earth’s atmosphere creates a wall of noise in the radio spectrum, which is difficult for radio telescopes to penetrate. There is a quiet area, however, between 1,000 and 10,000 megahertz (MHz). This range includes the 1,420 MHz band, one of the frequencies at which hydrogen, the major constituent of the universe, emits radiation. At 1,662 MHz the frequency range also contains an emission frequency of the hydroxyl ion-a hydrogen atom bound to an oxygen atom. Between these two frequencies is the quietest part of the radio spectrum as seen from the Earth’s surface. Since this radio window is bound by constituents of the water molecule, it has been poetically dubbed the “water hole”-the traditional meeting place of different species. It seems reasonable to suppose that intelligent beings biologically similar to us would follow the same logic and choose to broadcast in this region. Question: Which of the following statements about the hydrogen emission frequency mentioned by the author is supported by the passage?
- A.
  
  It happens to be near one end of the quietest part of the radio spectrum as perceived at the Earth’s surface
- B.
  
  It makes it unnecessary for astronomers searching for extraterrestrials to view many stars simultaneously
- C.
  
  It requires that radio telescopes be fixed at frequencies above 1,662 MHz
- D.
  
  It clears the Earth’s atmosphere of dense water molecules
Correct Answer
A. It happens to be near one end of the quietest part of the radio spectrum as perceived at the Earth’s surface

Explanation
The passage states that the hydrogen emission frequency is located between the 1,000 and 10,000 megahertz (MHz) range, which is the quietest part of the radio spectrum as seen from the Earth's surface. Therefore, the statement that the hydrogen emission frequency happens to be near one end of the quietest part of the radio spectrum as perceived at the Earth's surface is supported by the passage.

Rate this question:
13.

Passage: Scientists searching for extraterrestrials by listening for their radio transmission face the formidable task of looking at millions of stars before they can have any probability of success, and this supposes the unlikely optimum situation in which the “others” have high powered signals aimed continuously toward Earth. Most current approaches to the search for extraterrestrial intelligences (SETI) are therefore based on observing a large number of stars simultaneously, in the hope of detecting very powerful transmissions. The choice of frequencies at which to listen is ingenious. The absorption and reemission of radiation by gases in the Earth’s atmosphere creates a wall of noise in the radio spectrum, which is difficult for radio telescopes to penetrate. There is a quiet area, however, between 1,000 and 10,000 megahertz (MHz). This range includes the 1,420 MHz band, one of the frequencies at which hydrogen, the major constituent of the universe, emits radiation. At 1,662 MHz the frequency range also contains an emission frequency of the hydroxyl ion-a hydrogen atom bound to an oxygen atom. Between these two frequencies is the quietest part of the radio spectrum as seen from the Earth’s surface. Since this radio window is bound by constituents of the water molecule, it has been poetically dubbed the “water hole”-the traditional meeting place of different species. It seems reasonable to suppose that intelligent beings biologically similar to us would follow the same logic and choose to broadcast in this region. Question: Which of the following is NOT used by the author in developing the passage?
- A.
  
  Discussion of the current search for extraterrestrials
- B.
  
  Evaluation of one way to narrow the search for extraterrestrials
- C.
  
  Definition of a problem associated with radio telescopes
- D.
  
  Description of the cause of hydroxyl ion emission
Correct Answer
D. Description of the cause of hydroxyl ion emission

Explanation
The author does not provide a description of the cause of hydroxyl ion emission in the passage. The passage discusses the current search for extraterrestrials, evaluates one way to narrow the search, and defines a problem associated with radio telescopes. However, it does not provide a description of the cause of hydroxyl ion emission.

Rate this question:
14.

Passage: Scientists searching for extraterrestrials by listening for their radio transmission face the formidable task of looking at millions of stars before they can have any probability of success, and this supposes the unlikely optimum situation in which the “others” have high powered signals aimed continuously toward Earth. Most current approaches to the search for extraterrestrial intelligences (SETI) are therefore based on observing a large number of stars simultaneously, in the hope of detecting very powerful transmissions. The choice of frequencies at which to listen is ingenious. The absorption and reemission of radiation by gases in the Earth’s atmosphere creates a wall of noise in the radio spectrum, which is difficult for radio telescopes to penetrate. There is a quiet area, however, between 1,000 and 10,000 megahertz (MHz). This range includes the 1,420 MHz band, one of the frequencies at which hydrogen, the major constituent of the universe, emits radiation. At 1,662 MHz the frequency range also contains an emission frequency of the hydroxyl ion-a hydrogen atom bound to an oxygen atom. Between these two frequencies is the quietest part of the radio spectrum as seen from the Earth’s surface. Since this radio window is bound by constituents of the water molecule, it has been poetically dubbed the “water hole”-the traditional meeting place of different species. It seems reasonable to suppose that intelligent beings biologically similar to us would follow the same logic and choose to broadcast in this region. Question: According to the passage, the quietest part of the radio spectrum is called the “water hole” for which of the following reasons? I. Its boundaries are marked by emission frequencies of components of the water molecule II. It is a region in which humans might receive radio signals from extraterrestrials. III. It is something for which scientists have been desperately searching.
- A.
  
  I only
- B.
  
  II only
- C.
  
  I and II only
- D.
  
  I and III only
Correct Answer
C. I and II only

Explanation
The passage states that the quietest part of the radio spectrum, known as the "water hole," is bound by emission frequencies of components of the water molecule. This is the reason for the name "water hole." Additionally, the passage suggests that intelligent beings similar to humans would choose to broadcast in this region, implying that it is a region in which humans might receive radio signals from extraterrestrials. Therefore, the correct answer is I and II only.

Rate this question:

Quiz Review Timeline +

Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.

Current Version
Aug 28, 2023

Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team
May 08, 2012

Quiz Created by
Tanmay Shankar