The question asks about the natural methods of preserving food according to the author. Based on the comprehension provided, let's analyze the text to find the correct answer.
The given passage explains various traditional methods used by humans to preserve food. The author mentions:
These methods are stated in the passage as natural ways that have been used over thousands of years.
Now, let us evaluate the options:
Among these options, the correct set of methods according to the author is: Drying, parching, and fermenting.
Let's briefly explain why the other options are incorrect:
Thus, the correct answer is: Drying, parching, and fermenting.
The question asks what the phrase "to do so" refers to in the given passage. To identify this, we must interpret the text carefully:
From this analysis, "to do so" clearly refers to employing nature's methods to preserve foods for the specified purposes. Thus, the correct interpretation in the context of the passage is captured by the option:
The correct answer is: To preserve the foods for winter months, for resale, for storage, and for transporting.
The question revolves around the role of yeast in food preservation, particularly concerning its effect on liquids. Let's break down the information given in the comprehension text:
Now, let's analyze each option provided:
The correct answer is Preserves liquids and enhances their quality because the passage explicitly indicates that fermentation via yeast helps preserve liquids while also enhancing their quality. This is a common practice in the production of beverages like beer and wine, where yeast fermentation conserves the drink and improves its taste and characteristics.
Therefore, the understanding of how yeast is utilized in food and drink preservation aligns with this option. It is important to note how this ancient technique still influences modern practices in the food industry.
The question asks about the effect of bacteria, molds, and other microorganisms on food. To find the correct answer, let's analyze the options:
From the comprehension provided, it is clear that humans have used various methods of preservation to inhibit the action of microorganisms. These reactions are what cause food to become rotten. Thus, the correct choice is Rotting.
To solve the given question, we must analyze the passage provided to understand what the writer refers to when mentioning 'moulds'. Let's break this down:
Given the context of the passage, 'Moulds' refers to fungi that play a crucial role in both the spoilage and the preparation of certain foods, like cheese.
Now let's examine the options provided:
Based on these analyses, the correct answer is: Fungus of a kind.
To determine the correct answer to the question, we need to understand the context provided in the comprehension passage. The passage details various methods of food preservation that have been historically used and points out a significant advancement in the preservation process.
The key information from the passage is:
The question asks for the real "breakthrough" in the preservation of food. The comprehension clearly states that the critical advancement was the understanding and managing of micro-organisms responsible for spoilage.
Analyzing the options:
Thus, the correct answer is: deal with the micro-organisms.
The question asks for the "most natural method of preserving food" among several given options, with a comprehension passage to aid in answering. To find the solution, let's analyze the provided passage.
Let's briefly describe each method to further understand why parching fits the criteria:
The correct answer is clearly stated in the passage and is Parching.


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?