In the last sentence of paragraph 3, “slightly warmer air” and “at a slightly colder temperature” refer to ______ AND ______ respectively:
the cold Antarctic air which becomes warmer because of the heat radiated out from penguins’ bodies AND the fall in temperature of the surrounding air after thermal convection.
In the given passage, the terms "slightly warmer air" and "at a slightly colder temperature" are discussed in the context of heat transfer involving Emperor Penguins' plumage. Let's analyze the details:
According to the passage, the penguins' strategy involves their outer plumage being colder than the surrounding air. This allows them to gain a small amount of heat through thermal convection as the slightly warmer air comes in contact with the colder plumage. This process results in the Antarctic air losing some heat and cycling away at a "slightly colder temperature."
Therefore, the phrase "slightly warmer air" refers to the cold Antarctic air whose temperature is higher than that of the plumage, and "at a slightly colder temperature" alludes to the fall in temperature of the Antarctic air after it has transferred some heat to the plumage.
Hence, the correct answer is:
Heat loss through radiation happens despite the heat gain through convection.
Keeping their body colder helps penguins keep their plumage warmer.
Heat gain through radiation happens despite the heat loss through convection.
the penguins’ plumage were made of a material that did not allow any heat transfer through convection or radiation.
Your analysis is well-reasoned and effectively eliminates options based on their potential to weaken the author's argument. Let's summarize the points you made:
Choice 1: This option suggests that the outer air temperature could become colder than the plumage temperature, which contradicts the information in the passage. Therefore, it weakens the author's argument.
Choice 3: This option implies that the plumage is warmer than the outer Antarctic air, which goes against the information provided in the passage. This would also weaken the author's argument.
Choice 4: If the plumage does not allow thermal convection, it would hinder the penguins from gaining warmth as mentioned in the passage. Therefore, this choice weakens the argument.
Choice 2: This option suggests making the warmest part of the body (the feet) a little warmer, which does not directly contradict the information in the passage. Therefore, it does not weaken the author's argument.
Your careful consideration of each option and its potential impact on the argument demonstrates a clear understanding of the passage's content and logic. Well done!
To determine which factor is responsible for Emperor Penguins losing body heat, let's review the available options in the context of the provided comprehension:
From this analysis, it's evident that the reproduction process is the correct answer, as it involves activities that lead to energy expenditure and must be carefully managed to maintain body heat during their breeding cycle.


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: