The concluding part of the last paragraph, especially certain final sentences like "When Columbus describes the world, it is in accordance with east being at the top. Columbus says he is going towards paradise, so his mentality is from a medieval mappa mundi," clearly indicates that he adopted an eastward orientation for religious reasons. It's worth noting, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, that mappa mundi were Christian maps from that era.
The passage discusses the evolution of map-making and the orientation of maps over time. It highlights various cultural preferences for map orientation, such as Chinese maps placing north at the top because the emperor resided in the north, Egyptians placing east at the top due to the sunrise, Islamic maps favoring south at the top to look towards Mecca, and Christian maps prioritizing east to align with the Garden of Eden. It traces the inconsistency in map orientations throughout history and suggests that the role of European explorers was not the decisive factor in standardizing north at the top. Jerry Brotton mentions that even famed explorers like Columbus described the world with east at the top. Consequently, the passage does not explicitly state what the primary factor was for adopting north as the top in modern maps. Therefore, the biggest contributory factor remains unstated in the passage, aligning with the correct answer:
The biggest contributory factor is not stated in the passage
The question is about identifying which early map-making conventions were most influenced by natural phenomena. Based on the provided comprehension, each culture had different preferences for map orientation based on natural phenomena, religious beliefs, and societal structures:
Early Egyptian Maps: The East was considered the top because it is where the sun rises, reflecting the influence of natural phenomena.
Early Islamic Maps: Favored South at the top because early Muslim cultures were north of Mecca and imagined looking up (south) towards it, influenced by religious orientation.
Early Chinese Maps: Despite having compasses, north was placed at the top due to the emperor residing in the north, and not because of natural phenomena.
Early Christian Maps: Often placed East at the top towards the Garden of Eden and Jerusalem in the center, also influenced by religious beliefs.
The correct answer to the question is early Egyptian maps as they were clearly influenced by the position of the sunrise, a natural phenomenon.


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: