The question asks how the moon is referred to in the provided passage. Let's analyze each reference:
From the logical assessment above, we can conclude that:
Thus, the correct answer is the option that includes (II), (III), and (IV):
To understand why it is necessary to extract water locally on the moon, let's look at the details provided in the comprehension passage, the context, and the given answer options.
The passage describes the efforts of various space agencies, including NASA and ISRO, to explore the possibility of finding water on the moon. Finding water on the moon is likened to discovering a gold mine, significantly highlighting its importance. The cost of transporting water from Earth to the moon is estimated to be about $50,000 for a single bottle due to current launch costs. Therefore, having the ability to extract water already present on the moon is considered greatly beneficial.
Let's analyze the given answer options:
In conclusion, the correct answer is: It would be greatly useful to humans if they want to set up bases on the moon. This aligns with the comprehension's focus on the strategic benefits of local water sources for potential long-term human habitation and base setups on the moon.
The question revolves around the objectives of sending the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) to the Moon. Given the options, we need to identify the primary goal of these missions. Let's break down the information provided in the comprehension:
Now, let's analyze the options:
Based on the detailed analysis, the primary objective of sending LRO and LCROSS is to "Search for deposits of water." This aligns with the comprehension's emphasis on the importance and potential utility of finding water on the Moon.
The problem involves inferring information from a comprehension passage related to the moon. Let us analyze each option and relate it to the passage to determine the correct answer.
Based on the information presented in the passage, the option 'Daytime temperatures are very high' is the most accurate inference and therefore the correct answer.
To determine which statement is true in the context of the passage, we must analyze each option based on the information provided in the comprehension section.
After examining all statements, it is clear that Option C: "It is not yet proved whether the moon holds any water or not" is the only statement that accurately reflects the information given in the passage.
The question asks about the belief regarding the existence of water on the moon, with several options provided that reflect different theories or observations. Let's analyze each option in the context of the given passage:
All the provided options are plausible and supported by the content of the passage. Collectively, they illustrate the multifaceted theories and evidence regarding the existence and preservation of water on the moon.
Given these observations, the correct answer is:
This comprehensive response accounts for the diverse scientific stances and evidence discussed regarding lunar water. Such a nuanced understanding is critical for questions in verbal and logical ability sections of exams to assess comprehension and logical deduction skills.
To determine the most appropriate title for the given passage, we need to analyze the main theme and focus of the content provided.
Given this analysis, the main theme revolves around the exploration and the quest to find water on the lunar surface. This focus is best captured by the option Searching for Water on the Moon.
Let us consider the other options and rule them out:
Thus, the correct and most fitting title for the passage is: Searching for Water on the Moon.
The question asks for the best place to trap ice water on the moon, based on given options.


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.
If the price of a commodity increases by 25%, by what percentage should the consumption be reduced to keep the expenditure the same?
A shopkeeper marks his goods 40% above cost price and offers a 10% discount. What is his percentage profit?