The question asks us to identify which pair of words are synonymous. Let's analyze each of the given options:
Therefore, the correct answer is: Foundation and Bedrock as they are synonymous, both representing a stable or fundamental base.
The given passage revolves around Wole Soyinka, a Nigerian Nobel Laureate known for his diverse contributions to literature and his tireless efforts in social and political activism. Below is the step-by-step reasoning to identify the true statement about Soyinka based on the passage:
To answer the question about which word does not describe Wole Soyinka according to the author's opinion, we must analyze the provided comprehension and match the options to the descriptions given.
Based on the analysis above, the correct answer is Megalomaniac, as it is the only word among the options that does not describe Soyinka according to the author's opinion in the provided comprehension.
The given problem requires us to find the word that aptly substitutes the phrase "a pathological egotist." Let's analyze the options and the context to find the correct answer:
Therefore, the correct answer is Megalomaniac.
To find the synonym of the word ‘hilarious’ as used in the passage, we should first determine the context and meaning of 'hilarious' within the passage. The passage mentions: "Soyinka’s hilarious comedies and brilliant political satires like Opera Wonyosi..."
The word 'hilarious' generally means very funny or extremely amusing. In this context, it describes comedies that are likely to cause laughter and amusement.
Therefore, the synonym of 'hilarious' as used in the passage is Amusing. The term 'amusing' conveys a sense of fun and laughter that is synonymous with 'hilarious' in the context of comedy.
To answer the question regarding why UNESCO made Wole Soyinka its Goodwill Ambassador, we need to analyze the provided options against the context supplied in the passage.
To determine the central theme or focus of Wole Soyinka's play "Opera Wonyosi," we need to understand the context and the patterns of criticism Soyinka employs in his works. The comprehension passage provides essential insights into Soyinka's literary and societal contributions.
In conclusion, the theme of "Opera Wonyosi" centers on highlighting the "Evils and signs of decadence in Nigerian society," illustrating Soyinka's commitment to critiquing societal issues.
To determine what the passage is about, let us closely analyze its content and purpose:
Based on these points, the passage paints a comprehensive picture of Wole Soyinka’s life, works, and impact, positioning itself as a tribute to him.
Correct Answer: It is a tribute on Wole Soyinka
Explanation: The passage highlights Soyinka's literary, social, and cultural contributions, his personal sacrifices for human rights, and the recognition he has received. The overall tone and content are consistent with a tribute, celebrating his life and achievements rather than focusing on a specific literary work review, autobiography, prison life, or Nobel Prize acceptance speech.


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?