Option B is the correct choice since the passage uses examples such as those of the Inuit and Aboriginal Australians to demonstrate how physical conditions, notably environmental factors, shape human behavior and cultural norms. The narrative delves into the emergence of insulated fur attire among the Inuit due to Arctic conditions and the absence of indigenous agriculture in Aboriginal Australia owing to the dearth of domesticable local species. These instances underscore how physical conditions wield influence over certain facets of human conduct and mold cultural adjustments. Consequently, Option B accurately captures the main idea conveyed by the examples provided in the passage.
Option D lacks explicit emphasis within the passage, which concentrates more on the impact of environmental factors on behavior and cultures.
Option A: The passage does not expressly address self-sufficiency but rather elucidates the influence of specific environmental factors on societal development.
Option C is not entirely erroneous, yet Option B more precisely captures the focus on physical conditions shaping human behavior and cultures within the framework of the provided examples.
Correct Answer: Option B: how physical circumstances can dictate human behaviour and cultures.
Option A: The author notes that certain geographical explanations proposed a century ago carried racial undertones, leading to a tarnishing of all geographical theories by association with racism in the eyes of many scholars.
Option B: The author analyzes the present state of agricultural methodologies in Australia, highlighting that the agricultural produce and livestock contributing to Australia's status as a food and wool exporter today primarily comprise non-native species (predominantly Eurasian) introduced to the continent by foreign settlers. The usage of "non-native" suggests a departure in agricultural practices from the original flora and fauna indigenous to Australia.
Option C: The author examines the evolution of insulated fur garments among the Inuit populace residing north of the Arctic Circle, attributing it not to a specific individual decision or historical circumstance in 1783, but rather as a reaction to environmental stimuli.
Option D: This cannot be directly extrapolated from the passage. While the text delves into the impact of both geographical elements (such as biogeography) and non-geographical factors (including culture, history, and individual decisions) on human phenomena, it does not explicitly quantify or compare the predominance of these influences by asserting that "most human phenomena stem from culture and individual choice."
Correct Answer: Option C
Option B is not explicitly presented by the author as a rationale for the dismissal of geographic influences by non-geographers. The author implies that scholars often react unfavorably to explanations involving geography by condemning "geographic determinism." However, the specific notion of dismissal is not overtly articulated in the passage.
On the other hand, the remaining options can be inferred from the text:
Option A can be inferred from the following passage: "Another reason for reflex rejection of geographic explanations is that historians have a tradition, in their discipline, of stressing the role of contingency (a favorite word among historians) based on individual decisions and chance."
Option C can be deduced from the following excerpt: "One reason is that some geographic explanations advanced a century ago were racist, thereby causing all geographic explanations to become tainted."
Option D can be derived from the concluding paragraph of the passage: "Geographic explanations usually depend on detailed technical facts of geography and other fields of scholarship... Most historians and economists don't acquire that detailed knowledge as part of the professional training."
So, the correct option is (B): dismissal of explanations that involve geographical causes for human behaviour.


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: