Goodwill alone mitigates cultural hierarchies and barriers.
Learning another language can mitigate cultural hierarchies and barriers.
Globalisation has mitigated cultural hierarchies and barriers.
The question is about inferring which statement aligns with the author’s claim, "Which way is Oriental?" from the given passage. The passage discusses the experience of Chinese individuals in Upper Egypt and their impact due to their outsider status and linguistic adaptability.
1. The author narrates how Chinese people in Upper Egypt selling lingerie adapt by learning Arabic, which is not inflected in the same way as Mandarin. The Chinese learn by ear, often adopting speech patterns from female customers. This demonstrates their openness to understanding another culture, enhancing their acceptance in a conservative society.
2. The discussion around Orientalism suggests that identity is not just about ethnicity or gender but also about language. The author refutes the essentialism criticism by emphasizing the role of language in creating empathy and understanding across cultural boundaries.
3. The author believes language learning is transformative and fosters better understanding and connection with the world. The ability to communicate in different languages is portrayed as a more significant aspect of identity than race or gender.
4. The author criticizes the lack of 'identity linguistics' in contemporary identity politics, suggesting that language significantly contributes to selfhood and can alter individual identity.
In light of these points, the inference that "Learning another language can mitigate cultural hierarchies and barriers." is correct. The passage highlights how the Chinese men's efforts to learn Arabic facilitated their acceptance across cultural barriers in Egypt, which reflects on the power of language learning in mitigating cultural differences.
The author would discourage the ethnographer from conducting the study as Nigerian ethnographers can better understand the tribe.
The passage emphasizes the importance of language learning and cultural understanding over inherent characteristics such as race or gender. The author shares experiences where language proficiency facilitated deeper connections and understanding, regardless of ethnicity or gender. Both the author and the Chinese merchants were accepted because of their ability to communicate in the local language, highlighting that language learning and cultural immersion are transformative.
The author's stance in the passage suggests that they value the ability to learn and communicate in the local language as a crucial aspect of conducting meaningful ethnographic studies. This aligns with the option:
"The author would encourage the ethnographer, but ask him/her to first learn the language of the Nigerian tribe s/he wishes to study."
This option emphasizes the significance of language learning as a gateway to empathy and understanding, resonating with the passage's core message about transcending racial and gender boundaries through linguistic engagement.
Orientalism cannot be practiced by Egyptians.
According to the passage, which of the following is not responsible for language’s ability to change us?
Language’s intrinsic connection to our notions of self and identity.
Language’s ability to mediate the impact of identity markers one is born with.
To solve the question on which aspect is not responsible for language's ability to change us, we need to examine the passage and assess each option in the context of how language influences identity and self-transformation.
The passage explores the effect of language on personal identity and how learning a new language can lead to a transformation in personality and perceptions. It suggests several factors contributing to this transformation:
Given this analysis, the correct answer is that The twists and turns in the evolution of language over time are not responsible for language's ability to change us, as the passage focuses more on personal language experiences and transformations rather than historical language evolution.


When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be especially difficult. Such understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To negotiate meaning with someone, you have to become aware of and respect both the differences in your backgrounds and when these differences are important. You need enough diversity of cultural and personal experience to be aware that divergent world views exist and what they might be like. You also need the flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance for mistakes, as well as a talent for finding the right metaphor to communicate the relevant parts of unshared experiences or to highlight the shared experiences while demphasizing the others. Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience. This skill consists, in large measure, of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorize your experiences. Problems of mutual understanding are not exotic; they arise in all extended conversations where understanding is important.
When it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated according to the CONDUIT metaphor, that is, where one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc. When the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what it is safe to talk about, how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision. With enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding.
Communication theories based on the CONDUIT metaphor turn from the pathetic to the evil when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale, say, in government surveillance or computerized files. There, what is most crucial for real understanding is almost never included, and it is assumed that the words in the file have meaning in themselves—disembodied, objective, understandable meaning. When a society lives by the CONDUITmetaphor on a large scale, misunderstanding, persecution, and much worse are the likely products.
Later, I realized that reviewing the history of nuclear physics served another purpose as well: It gave the lie to the naive belief that the physicists could have come together when nuclear fission was discovered (in Nazi Germany!) and agreed to keep the discovery a secret, thereby sparing humanity such a burden. No. Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, development that physicists throughout the world pursued in all innocence of any intention of finding the engine of a new weapon of mass destruction—only one of them, the remarkable Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, took that possibility seriously—the discovery of nuclear fission was inevitable. To stop it, you would have had to stop physics. If German scientists hadn’t made the discovery when they did, French, American, Russian, Italian, or Danish scientists would have done so, almost certainly within days or weeks. They were all working at the same cutting edge, trying to understand the strange results of a simple experiment bombarding uranium with neutrons. Here was no Faustian bargain, as movie directors and other naifs still find it intellectually challenging to imagine. Here was no evil machinery that the noble scientists might hide from the problems and the generals. To the contrary, there was a high insight into how the world works, an energetic reaction, older than the earth, that science had finally devised the instruments and arrangements to coart forth. “Make it seem inevitable,” Louis Pasteur used to advise his students when they prepared to write up their discoveries. But it was. To wish that it might have been ignored or suppressed is barbarous. “Knowledge,” Niels Bohr once noted, “is itself the basis for civilization.” You cannot have the one without the other; the one depends upon the other. Nor can you have only benevolent knowledge; the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence. Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, but always welcome. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “It is a profound and necessary truth,” Robert Oppenheimer would say, “that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.”
...Bohr proposed once that the goal of science is not universal truth. Rather, he argued, the modest but relentless goal of science is “the gradual removal of prejudices.” The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun has gradually removed the prejudice that the earth is the center of the universe. The discovery of microbes is gradually removing the prejudice that disease is a punishment from God. The discovery of evolution is gradually removing the prejudice that Homo sapiens is a separate and special creation.
For any natural number $k$, let $a_k = 3^k$. The smallest natural number $m$ for which \[ (a_1)^1 \times (a_2)^2 \times \dots \times (a_{20})^{20} \;<\; a_{21} \times a_{22} \times \dots \times a_{20+m} \] is: