The question asks us to determine why the author refers to Thomas Hardy’s poem in the given comprehension. Let's break down the passage and options to find the correct answer:
The question asks what the scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) achieved. To determine the correct option, we need to thoroughly understand the work conducted by JCVI as described in the provided comprehension passage. Let's evaluate each option based on the information given:
After evaluating the options, the correct answer is: They circumvented nature’s constraint of direct descent. This choice directly aligns with the achievement described in the passage where the JCVI scientists synthesized a complete genome, bypassing the natural biological descent process.
The question relates to a passage on the groundbreaking work of the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), where scientists produced the first synthetic genome. Let's break down the options to find the one that accurately describes the outcome of their research based on the passage provided.
Based on the passage, the correct answer is Option D: They produced the first synthetic genome in the laboratory which is analogous to the natural one. This finding is supported by the detailed process described in the passage, explaining how the synthetic genome was assembled and verified to match the natural one. Therefore, Option D encapsulates the principal accomplishment of the JCVI research as outlined in the comprehension passage.
The given question asks about the method used to stitch together synthetic DNA pieces in the laboratory. To determine the correct answer, we should refer to the comprehension provided.
The passage describes the process undertaken by scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) in synthesizing the genome of the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium. Although the DNA pieces were synthesized chemically, the passage specifically states:
"While the DNA pieces were synthesized chemically, the stitching together was done using the biochemical machinery of a host cell."
This clearly indicates that the correct answer is: The biochemical machinery of a host cell.
Let's evaluate why other options are incorrect:
Thus, based on the passage's detailed explanation and our analysis, the synthetic DNA fragments are indeed stitched together using the biochemical machinery of a host cell.
The question asks about the author's gut feeling regarding the future potential of scientific work discussed in the provided comprehension passage. Here's a step-by-step analysis and explanation:
The question asks us to identify the word that appropriately substitutes 'flummox' as used in the passage. Let's analyze the options provided:
In the passage context, flummox is used to describe a situation that would confuse or bewilder even an ethicist. Therefore, the closest substitution for 'flummox' in this context is:
The passage discusses complex biotechnological advancements that could confuse (flummox or bewilder) even professionals like ethicists. This perfectly fits the definition of 'bewilder'.
To determine which statement is not true according to the passage, let's analyze each option with reference to the given comprehension.
Conclusion: The statement "Cloning of Dolly, the sheep, has invited the wrath of people because the sheep soon died a miserable death" is not true according to the passage. The passage explicitly mentions that cloning Dolly did not raise any outrage, contradicting this statement.
To determine the correct answer to the question "A recently initiated technology, which is ethically acceptable, is", we need to analyze the provided comprehension passage along with the options given. Let's go through the options one by one:
Based on the analysis above, the correct answer is Assisted reproduction. This option is clearly stated in the passage as being ethically and morally accepted.
The comprehension passage discusses advancements in genetic engineering, specifically the synthetic synthesis of genomes and its implications. The text focuses on the ethical considerations of such advancements and draws a comparison between different biotechnological breakthroughs like cloning.
To answer the question about the author's opinion on human cloning, let's analyze the last part of the comprehension: "Assisted reproduction...has become ethically and morally acceptable. Cloning of Dolly, the sheep, has not raised any outrage, but cloning a human certainly does.”
Based on this analysis, the author implies that cloning a human being would lead to indignation, as it moves into ethically controversial territory far more than cloning animals. Therefore, it is evident that the author's opinion is best matched by the option:
Other Options Review:
Therefore, the correct answer is: It will invite people’s indignation.
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.
As the post–World War II generation of liberal democratic leaders forged new, highly successful domestic and international institutions and policies throughout the West, the weaknesses of liberal democracy that dominated the two decades after World War II faded from view. But they did not go away.
First, because liberal democracy restrains majorities, it slows the achievement of goals that majorities support. This generates frustration with institutional restraints, and an unacknowledged envy of authoritarian systems that can act quickly and decisively. China can build huge cities in the time it takes the United States to review the environmental impact of small highway projects. Liberal democracy requires more patience than many possess. Second, liberal democracy requires tolerance for minority views and ways of life to which many citizens are deeply opposed. It is natural to feel that if we consider certain views or ways of life to be odious, we should use public power to suppress them. In many such cases, liberal democracy restrains this impulse, a psychological burden that some will find unbearable.
This leads directly to the third inherent problem of liberal democracy—the distinction it requires us to make between civic identity and personal or group identity. For example, although we may consider certain religious views false and even dangerous, we must, for civic purposes, accept those who hold these views as our equals. They may freely express these views; they may organize to promote them; they may vote, and their votes are given the same weight as ours. The same goes for race, ethnicity, gender, and all the particularities that distinguish us from one another.
This requirement often goes against the grain of natural sentiments. We want the public sphere to reflect what we find most valuable about our private commitments. Liberal democracy prevents us from fully translating our personal identities into our public lives as citizens. This too is not always easy to bear. The quest for wholeness—for a political community, or even a world, that reflects our most important commitments—is a deep yearning to which liberal leaders can always appeal.
Nor is the fourth inherent difficulty of liberal democracy—the necessity of compromise—easy to bear. If what I want is good and true, why should I agree that public decisions must incorporate competing views? James Madison gives us the answer: in circumstances of liberty, diversity of views is inevitable, and unless those who agree with us form a majority so large as to be irresistible, the alternative to compromise is inaction, which is often more damaging, or oppression, which always is.
Beware of the old newspapers
stacked
on that little three legged stool over there.
Don’t disturb them.
I know it for a fact
that snakes have spawned in between these sheets.
Don’t even look in that direction.
It’s not because of breeze
that their corners are fluttering.
It’s alive, that nest of newspapers.
new born snakes, coiling and uncurling,
are turning their heads to look at you.
That white corner has spread its hood.
A forked tongue
shoots out of its mouth.
Keep your eyes closed.
Get rid of the whole goddamn pile if you
want to
in the morning.
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?