The paradox of patrimony laws, as discussed in the passage, lies in the contrast between their intended purpose and their actual outcome. These laws were enacted to safeguard a nation's cultural heritage by preventing artifacts from being removed and held abroad. However, the passage highlights that such protective measures have led to an unintended decline in archaeological exploration, especially by foreign institutions.
Since these laws make it difficult for external organizations to retain or display discovered artifacts, they discourage investment and participation in excavations. As a result, fewer new sites are unearthed, undermining the very goal of preserving and understanding cultural history.
Best expression of the paradox: They were aimed at protecting cultural property, but instead reduced new archaeological discoveries.
The passage indicates that archaeological sites hold value for source countries not only for their cultural and historical significance but also due to their economic and societal benefits. Specifically, the text states that countries should consider modifying strict cultural property laws so they can “reap the benefits of new archaeological discoveries, which typically increase tourism and enhance cultural pride.”
This clearly shows that archaeological sites are viewed as a means to attract tourism and boost national pride. Therefore, it can be inferred that some source countries see these sites as important because they give a boost to the tourism sector.
Correct inference: Archaeological sites are considered important by some source countries because they give a boost to the tourism sector.
Option A: The author acknowledges that strict cultural property laws may deter foreign funding of archaeological expeditions. Hence, it is logical that the author would support efforts to persuade international organizations to continue funding such research in source countries.
Option B: The passage presents China as a successful example of transitioning from strict regulation to international collaboration, which resulted in more archaeological discoveries. Thus, this is a valid and supported suggestion.
Option C: The text supports global cooperation in archaeology and implies that allowing foreign examination and exhibition of artifacts can be beneficial. This aligns with the author's concerns about the restrictive nature of cultural property rules.
Option D: Although the passage promotes international collaboration, it does not support the idea that outsourcing research to foreign nations (i.e., conducting research entirely outside the source country) is beneficial. Rather, the author argues for collaborative work within the nation of origin. Thus, Option D is not consistent with the author's likely recommendations.
Therefore, the correct answer is: Option D — it is not a suggestion the author would likely support.
The passage argues that strict rules protecting cultural property—while well-intentioned and widely supported—could reduce the willingness of international organizations to fund archaeological research abroad. This, in turn, might negatively affect discoveries, tourism, and national pride in the source countries.
Option D challenges this reasoning by suggesting that external financial support continues despite the rules, thereby weakening the link between regulation and decreased funding. If true, this implies that the lack of archaeological discoveries might be due to other unrelated factors not considered by the author.
Therefore, the correct answer is: Option D — it introduces an alternative explanation that counters the passage’s main point.


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: