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: Nov 30, 2024
  • 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 describes contrasting reactions to the Chinese and Israeli lunar “contaminations,” highlighting that while China’s actions went unchallenged, the Israeli incident sparked a firestorm. This suggests that different national scientists have varying sensitivities when it comes to issues of biosphere protection, which is the main point of the passage.

Therefore, option (3) is the correct answer.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

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

Updated On: Nov 30, 2024
  • 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

In the first paragraph, the author criticizes the excessive efforts to sterilize robotic probes and prevent contamination, arguing that the efforts seem unnecessary given that Mars, for example, has not shown signs of life. The author’s tone is skeptical about these excessive measures.

Therefore, option (4) is the correct answer.

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: Nov 30, 2024
  • 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

In the passage, the author dismisses concerns about contamination on Mars by pointing out that there is no evidence of life on Mars, that previous space missions have already contaminated environments, and that other countries may not adhere to contamination protocols. However, the passage does not mention the lack of impact of similar probes on the moon’s environment, making option (2) the exception.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4

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

Updated On: Nov 30, 2024
  • 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

The author is skeptical about the excessive efforts to sterilize space exploration missions, suggesting that the focus should be on the practical exploration of space rather than just minimizing contamination. The author is likely to disagree with the idea of minimizing contamination until the possibility of life is completely ruled out. This view is contrary to the author’s argument that life on Mars is unlikely and that human exploration should proceed.

Therefore, option (4) is the exception.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

View More Questions

Questions Asked in CAT exam

View More Questions