Comprehension
The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
There is a group in the space community who view the solar system not as an opportunity to expand human potential but as a nature preserve, forever the provenance of an elite group of scientists and their sanitary robotic probes. These planetary protection advocates [call] for avoiding “harmful contamination” of celestial bodies. Under this regime, NASA incurs great expense sterilizing robotic probes in order to prevent the contamination of entirely theoretical biospheres. . . .
Transporting bacteria would matter if Mars were the vital world once imagined by astronomers who mistook optical illusions for canals. Nobody wants to expose Martians to measles, but sadly, robotic exploration reveals a bleak, rusted landscape, lacking oxygen and flooded with radiation ready to sterilize any Earthly microbes. Simple life might exist underground, or down at the bottom of a deep canyon, but it has been very hard to find with robots. . . . The upsides from human exploration and development of Mars clearly outweigh the welfare of purely speculative Martian fungi. . . .
The other likely targets of human exploration, development, and settlement, our moon and the asteroids, exist in a desiccated, radiation-soaked realm of hard vacuum and extreme temperature variations that would kill nearly anything. It’s also important to note that many international competitors will ignore the demands of these protection extremists in any case. For example, China recently sent a terrarium to the moon and germinated a plant seed—with, unsurprisingly, no protest from its own scientific community. In contrast, when it was recently revealed that a researcher had surreptitiously smuggled super-resilient microscopic tardigrades aboard the ill-fated Israeli Beresheet lunar probe, a firestorm was unleashed within the space community. . . .
NASA’s previous human exploration efforts made no serious attempt at sterility, with little notice. As the Mars expert Robert Zubrin noted in the National Review, U.S. lunar landings did not leave the campsites cleaner than they found it. Apollo’s bacteria-infested litter included bags of feces. Forcing NASA’s proposed Mars exploration to do better, scrubbing everything and hauling out all the trash, would destroy NASA’s human exploration budget and encroach on the agency’s other directorates, too. Getting future astronauts off Mars is enough of a challenge, without trying to tote weeks of waste along as well.
A reasonable compromise is to continue on the course laid out by the U.S. government and the National Research Council, which proposed a system of zones on Mars, some for science only, some for habitation, and some for resource exploitation. This approach minimizes contamination, maximizes scientific exploration . . . Mars presents a stark choice of diverging human futures. We can turn inward, pursuing ever more limited futures while we await whichever natural or manmade disaster will eradicate our species and life on Earth. Alternatively, we can choose to propel our biosphere further into the solar system, simultaneously protecting our home planet and providing a backup plan for the only life we know exists in the universe. Are the lives on Earth worth less than some hypothetical microbe lurking under Martian rocks?
Question: 1

The contrasting reactions to the Chinese and Israeli “contaminations” of lunar space

Updated On: Jul 21, 2025
  • are evidence of China’s reasonable approach towards space contamination.
  • are valid as the contamination of the lunar environment from animal sources is far greater than from plants.
  • indicate that national scientists may have different sensitivities to issues of biosphere protection.
  • reveal global biases prevalent in attitudes towards different countries.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

The passage presents a debate about the exploration and potential contamination of celestial bodies by Earth-origin microbes. It mentions the contrasting reactions to China's germination of a plant seed on the moon and Israel's accidental release of tardigrades. These differing reactions highlight that national scientists may have different sensitivities to issues of biosphere protection.
In the passage, it is noted that China's actions did not provoke protests from its scientific community, implying a different threshold or concern level compared to other countries, such as Israel, where the issue of contamination stirred significant controversy. This distinction emphasizes that national scientific communities are not uniform and may prioritize biosphere protection with varying degrees of sensitivity, likely influenced by cultural, political, or scientific perspectives.
Therefore, the correct answer is:
indicate that national scientists may have different sensitivities to issues of biosphere protection.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

The author’s overall tone in the first paragraph can be described as

Updated On: Jul 21, 2025
  • equivocal about the reasons extended by the group of scientists seeking to limit space exploration.
  • indifferent to the elitism of a few scientists aiming to corner space exploration.
  • approving of the amount of money NASA spends to restrict the spread of contamination in space.
  • sceptical about the excessive efforts to sanitise planets where life has not yet been proven to exist.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

The question asks for the author's tone in the first paragraph of the passage. To determine the tone, we need to analyze the language and perspective expressed by the author.
The passage discusses a group within the space community that wants to protect celestial bodies from contamination, involving significant costs to NASA for sterilizing probes. The author refers to "entirely theoretical biospheres" and "speculative Martian fungi," indicating skepticism about the reasons for excessive caution when life has not been proven on these planets.
Given this analysis, the author's tone is best described as skeptical regarding the extensive efforts to sanitize planets where life has not been confirmed. Therefore, the correct option is: sceptical about the excessive efforts to sanitise planets where life has not yet been proven to exist.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3

The author mentions all of the following reasons to dismiss concerns about contaminating Mars EXCEPT:

Updated On: Jul 21, 2025
  • efforts to contain contamination on Mars are likely to be derailed as competitor countries may not follow similar restrictions.
  • the use of similar probes on astronomical bodies like the moon have had little effect on the environment.
  • the lack of evidence of living organisms on Mars makes possible contamination from earthly microbes a moot point.
  • earlier explorations have already contaminated pristine space environments.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

The given comprehension brings forth arguments related to space exploration and contamination concerns, particularly focusing on Mars and its potential implications. The challenge is to identify the option that is not mentioned as a reason to dismiss concerns about contaminating Mars.
The comprehension explores several points:
  • International Competitors: The passage mentions that international competitors, such as China, often ignore the stringent contamination protocols, undermining efforts to contain contamination. This is reflected in the option about efforts likely being derailed by competitors.
  • Lack of Evidence of Life: It argues that Mars, with its harsh environment, shows no evidence of Martian life, making the contamination by Earth microbes a moot point. This aligns with the option about the lack of evidence of living organisms on Mars.
  • Past Contaminations: It mentions that previous missions, like the U.S. lunar landings, have already led to contamination without serious outcomes, fitting the option about earlier explorations contaminating space environments.
However, it does not provide any specific evidence or mention that the use of similar probes on astronomical bodies like the moon has had little effect on the environment. This makes this option the outlier compared to the other arguments presented in the passage.
Therefore, the correct answer is:
The use of similar probes on astronomical bodies like the moon have had little effect on the environment.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4

The author is unlikely to disagree with any of the following EXCEPT:

Updated On: Jul 21, 2025
  • the exorbitant costs of continuing to keep the space environment pristine may be unsustainable.
  • that while NASA’s earlier missions were not ideal in their approach to space contamination, they likely did no grave damage.
  • the proposal for a zonal segregation of the Martian landscape into regions for different purposes.
  • space contamination should be minimised until the possibility of life on the astronomical body being explored is ruled out.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

Based on the passage, the author discusses different views regarding space contamination and the exploration of celestial bodies. Let's analyze each option and determine which statement the author is unlikely to disagree with:

  • Option 1: "The exorbitant costs of continuing to keep the space environment pristine may be unsustainable." The passage indicates concerns about costs and impracticality of maintaining sterility in space missions, especially considering the author mentions that "scrubbing everything and hauling out all the trash, would destroy NASA’s human exploration budget."
  • Option 2: "That while NASA’s earlier missions were not ideal in their approach to space contamination, they likely did no grave damage." The passage suggests that earlier missions made no serious attempt at sterility, but there was little notice or uproar over it, implying minimal perceived damage.
  • Option 3: "The proposal for a zonal segregation of the Martian landscape into regions for different purposes." The author describes a zonal approach as a reasonable compromise, suggesting a preference for this system to maximize scientific exploration and minimize contamination.
  • Option 4: "Space contamination should be minimised until the possibility of life on the astronomical body being explored is ruled out." Although the author acknowledges the need to consider potential life, the passage criticizes unnecessary expense and extremism in protection measures, focusing instead on human exploration benefits, which suggests disagreement with this statement.

Conclusion: Given the passage's context, the author would likely not disagree with the practicality of options 1, 2, and 3. However, the author would possibly disagree with option 4's focus on minimizing contamination over exploration benefits, making it the correct exception.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

View More Questions

Questions Asked in CAT exam

View More Questions