Two texts analysis - Seminari i Kursevi

Passage 1 Passage 2


Any wildlife biologist can tell you how many deer a given area can support—how much browse there is for the deer to eat before they begin to suppress the reproduction of trees, before they begin to starve in the winter. Any biologist can calculate how many wolves a given area can support too, in part by counting the number of deer. And so on, up and down the food chain. It’s not an exact science, but it comes pretty close—at least compared to figuring 10 out the carrying capacity of Earth for human beings, which is an art so dark that anyone with any sense stays away from it.		Estimates of the number of humans that Earth can sustain have ranged in recent decades from fewer than 15 a billion to more than a trillion. Such elasticity is probably unavoidable, since “carrying capacity” is essentially a subjective term. It makes little sense to talk about carrying capacity in relationship to humans, who are capable of adapting and altering both their culture and their physical 20 environment, and can thus defy any formula that might settle the matter. The number of people that Earth can support depends on how we on Earth want to live, on what we want to consume, and on what we regard as a crowd

1. Both passages support which of the following conclusions about Earth’s carrying capacity for humans?

(A) It is routinely underestimated by biologists.

(B) It cannot be easily determined, given numerous variables and unknowns.

(D) It is a valuable concept despite its apparent shortcomings.

(E) It has increased as a result of recent technological innovations.

2. The author of Passage 1 refers to “Any wildlife biologist” in line 1 and “Any biologist” in line 5 to emphasize the point that

(A) a particular type of calculation can be made with great confidence

(B) scientific findings often meet with resistance from the general public

(D) most biologists are concerned with issues related to wildlife mortality

(E) all biologists must be skilled at applying mathematical formulas

3. Both authors would agree that the “Estimates” (Passage 2, line 13) are

(A) overly generous

(B) largely undocumented

(D) politically motivated

(E) essentially unreliable

4. Which of the following best describes the relationship between the two passages?

(A) Passage 1 offers a hypothesis that is explicitly refuted in Passage 2.

(B) Passage 1 describes a popular misconception that is exemplified by Passage 2.

(D) Passage 2 defends a position that is attacked in Passage 1.

(E) Passage 2 provides an anecdote that confirms the theory advanced in Passage 1.

Passage 1 Passage 2

There comes a time in every boy’s life when he becomes a man. Onthis fateful day, he will be swept up and put on an island to competefor one million dollars. Then, this man will realize that money can’tbuy happiness. He will find his soul mate, as we all do, on national TV,picking a woman out of a line of twenty. By then it will be time for himto settle down, move to the suburbs, make friends with the neighbors,and then refurbish the neighbors’ house.Welcome to real life. That is, real life as the television networkssee it.Reality TV is flawed in many ways, but the most obvious is in itsname. It purports to portray reality, but no “reality” show has succeededin this endeavor. Instead, Reality TV is an extension of fiction,and there are no writers who need to be paid. Television executiveslove it because it is so much cheaper to produce than any other typeof programming, and it’s popular. But the truth is that there is little orno reality in Reality TV.Do you sing in the shower while dreaming of getting your ownrecord deal? There are a couple of shows made just for you. Audition,and make the cut, so some British guy who has never sung a note canrip you to pieces on live television. Or maybe you’re lonely and fiscallychallenged, and dream of walking down the aisle with a millionaire?Real marriage doesn’t involve contestants who know each other for acouple of days. The people on these shows seem to be more interestedin how they look on camera than in the character of the person theymight spend the rest of their life with. Let’s hope that isn’t reality.There are also about a dozen decorating shows. In one case, twocouples trade rooms and redecorate for each other. The catch is, interiordesigners help them. This is where the problem starts. Wouldeither couple hire someone who thinks it’s a great idea to swathe aroom in hundreds of yards of muslin, or to adhere five thousand plasticflowers as a mural in a bathroom? The crimes committed againstdefenseless walls are outrageous. When you add the fact that the couplesare in front of cameras as well as the designers, and thus unable toreact honestly to what is going on, you get a new level of “unreality.”
Then there is the show that made the genre mainstream—Survivor.The show that pits men and women from all walks of life against eachother for a million dollar prize in the most successful of all the RealityTV programs. What are record numbers of viewers tuning in tosee? People who haven’t showered or done their laundry in weeks areshown scavenging for food and competing in ridiculous physical challenges.Where’s the reality? From the looks of it, the contestants spendmost of their time, when not on a Reality TV show, driving to theBurger Barn and getting exercise only when the remote goes missing.So the television networks have used Reality TV to replace the dramasand comedies that once filled their schedules, earning millions inadvertising revenue. The lack of creativity, of producing somethingworth watching, is appalling. We are served up hundreds of hours ofReality TV each week, so we can watch real people in very unreal situations,acting as little like themselves as possible. What’s real about that?

Why does Reality TV get such a bad rap? Editorials on the subjectblame its popularity on everything from the degenerate morals oftoday’s youth to our ever-decreasing attention spans. The truth is thatreality-based programs have been around for decades. Candid Camerafirst aired in 1948, a “Cops”-like show called Wanted was on CBS’slineup in the mid-1950s, and PBS aired a controversial 12–hour documentaryfilmed inside a family’s home in 1973. But it was Survivor,which debuted on American TV in the summer of 2000, whichspawned the immense popularity of the “reality” genre. There are nowmore than 40 reality shows on the air, and, hinting that they are hereto stay, the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences added “Best RealityShow” as an Emmy category in 2002.Why are these shows so popular today? Are they really a sign thatour morals, and our minds, are on a decline? People have been tuningin to Reality TV for generations, so what makes today’s shows anyworse than their predecessors? Let’s look at a number of current, popularshows to see what the fuss is about. MTV’s The Real World has beenon the air for over ten years. It places seven strangers in one house andtapes them as they live together for a few months. The show has beena ratings homerun for MTV, and tens of thousands of hopefuls auditioneach time they announce they are producing another show. Thosewho make the cut are attractive young singles not only looking for agood time, but also looking for fame, too. It’s not uncommon for themto hire a show business agent before the taping starts.

Follow the money and you will end up in space.That’s the message from a first-of-its-kind forum onmining beyond Earth.Convened in Sydney by the Australian Centre forSpace Engineering Research, the event broughttogether mining companies, robotics experts, lunarscientists, and government agencies that are allworking to make space mining a reality.The forum comes hot on the heels of the2012 unveiling of two private asteroid-mining firms.Planetary Resources of Washington says it willlaunch its first prospecting telescopes in two years,while Deep Space Industries of Virginia hopes to beharvesting metals from asteroids by 2020. Anothercommercial venture that sprung up in 2012,Golden Spike of Colorado, will be offering trips tothe moon, including to potential lunar miners.Within a few decades, these firms may bemeeting earthly demands for precious metals, such asplatinum and gold, and the rare earth elements vitalfor personal electronics, such as yttrium andlanthanum. But like the gold rush pioneers whotransformed the western United States, the first spaceminers won’t just enrich themselves. They also hopeto build an off-planet economy free of any bondswith Earth, in which the materials extracted andprocessed from the moon and asteroids are deliveredfor space-based projects.In this scenario, water mined from otherworlds could become the most desired commodity.“In the desert, what’s worth more: a kilogram of goldor a kilogram of water?” asks Kris Zacny ofHoneyBee Robotics in New York. “Gold is useless.Water will let you live.”Water ice from the moon’s poles could be sent toastronauts on the International Space Station fordrinking or as a radiation shield. Splitting water intooxygen and hydrogen makes spacecraft fuel, soice-rich asteroids could become interplanetaryrefuelling stations. Companies are eyeing the iron, silicon, andaluminium in lunar soil and asteroids, which couldbe used in 3D printers to make spare parts ormachinery. Others want to turn space dirt intoconcrete for landing pads, shelters, and roads.

The motivation for deep-space travel is shiftingfrom discovery to economics. The past year has seena flurry of proposals aimed at bringing celestial richesdown to Earth. No doubt this will make a fewbillionaires even wealthier, but we all stand to gain:the mineral bounty and spin-off technologies couldenrich us all.But before the miners start firing up their rockets,we should pause for thought. At first glance, spacemining seems to sidestep most environmentalconcerns: there is (probably!) no life on asteroids,and thus no habitats to trash. But its consequences—both here on Earth and in space—merit carefulconsideration.Part of this is about principles. Some will arguethat space’s “magnificent desolation” is not ours todespoil, just as they argue that our own planet’s polesshould remain pristine. Others will suggest thatglutting ourselves on space’s riches is not anacceptable alternative to developing more sustainableways of earthly life.History suggests that those will be hard lines tohold, and it may be difficult to persuade the publicthat such barren environments are worth preserving.After all, they exist in vast abundance, and evenfewer people will experience them than have walkedthrough Antarctica’s icy landscapes.There’s also the emerging off-world economy toconsider. The resources that are valuable in orbit andbeyond may be very different to those we prize onEarth. Questions of their stewardship have barelybeen broached—and the relevant legal and regulatoryframework is fragmentary, to put it mildly.Space miners, like their earthly counterparts, areoften reluctant to engage with such questions.One speaker at last week’s space-mining forum inSydney, Australia, concluded with a plea thatregulation should be avoided. But miners have muchto gain from a broad agreement on the for-profitexploitation of space. Without consensus, claims willbe disputed, investments risky, and the gains madeinsecure. It is in all of our long-term interests to seekone out.

Which statement best describes the relationship between the passages?

A) Passage 2 refutes the central claim advanced inPassage

1.B) Passage 2 illustrates the phenomenon describedin more general terms in Passage

1.C) Passage 2 argues against the practicality of theproposals put forth in Passage

1.D) Passage 2 expresses reservations aboutdevelopments discussed in Passage 1.

The author of Passage 2 would most likely respond tothe discussion of the future of space mining inlines 18-28, Passage 1, by claiming that such a future

Which point about the resources that will be highlyvalued in space is implicit in Passage 1 and explicit inPassage 2?

passage 1 passage 2

Microbial life can exist in the most extreme environments on Earth. In a recent study, researchersreported the first direct evidence of life in a lakelocated almost a kilometer below an ice sheet in Antarctica. The ice provides an effective “duvet,”trapping the heat naturally emitted through theEarth’s crust.There is growing evidence that many of theAntarctic lakes are connected by a network of channels. These channels control the flow ofoverlying ice streams, and liquid water at the base ofice sheets lubricates the passage of ice. The lakesassociated with ice streams are thought to act asreservoirs for this lubrication process, filling and partly emptying on a fairly regular basis so the waterin the lake is replaced every few years.Subglacial Lake Whillans, described in the study,is an example of a dynamic subglacial lake. Itreceives no light to support photosynthesis, has constantly low temperatures (just a little below zero)and is under pressure eighty times atmosphericpressure due to the 800m of overlying ice.With relatively frequent changing of the lakewater, the availability of organic matter, which humans and many other life forms—collectivelytermed heterotrophs—use for energy and growth,will be limited. The only things that can support theheterotrophs in this ecosystem are the underlyingancient seabed geology, which can provide small amounts of organic carbon from the rock material,and the recycling of carbon from dead microbes.Thus, what a dynamic subglacial ecosystem such asthis needs to really succeed is to also use the muchmore plentiful non-organic energy sources. When the samples were analyzed, the researchersfound that the lake contained organisms from bothBacteria and Archaea trees of life. While some ofthe organisms could be identified from genedatabases as also occurring elsewhere, particularly in cold environments, many of the lake’s microbesappear to be completely new. Along with a range ofheterotrophic microbes, the most prevalentorganisms were those that can consume inorganicchemicals, such as iron, manganese, sulfur and, especially, nitrogen. These organisms are calledchemoautotrophs. The “chemoautotrophic” lifestyle isrepresentative of the earliest life on Earth. Thisexisted long before photosynthesis created an oxygen-rich world and powered the explosion ofbiological diversity and organic carbon biomass tosupport the heterotrophic lifestyle dominating themodern Earth.

These days, Antarctica is 99.7% covered in ice, and the 0.3% of land that is ice-free is home todiverse and unique ecosystems on considerably smaller scales, made up of mosses, lichens andvarious invertebrate animals such as mites and tinynematode worms. New evidence provides an intriguing solution to the mystery of how Antarcticspecies could have clung on through ice ages.There are many volcanoes in Antarctica andsome have large magma chambers that can provideheat to the surface for hundreds of thousands of years. When we examined species richness patternsacross the whole continent, we found there are more species close to these volcanoes, and fewer further away. These patterns indicate that the volcanoeshave sheltered diverse life over long periods, including during ice ages. The volcanoes wouldhave provided warmth, and helped to ward off theencroaching ice, as the planet entered a period ofdeep freeze.As well as melting areas of ice on the surface, steam from volcanoes can cause the formation of extensive cave systems beneath the glaciers,tens of degrees warmer than outside. Thesegeothermally warmed environments could havesupported biodiversity through the most intenseglacial periods. Then, as the world warmed andmore ice-free areas became available, chanceevents would have allowed some species todisperse away, stepping-stone style, to newhabitats.The further away from the source, the fewerthe species that would be likely to establish,leading to the diversity gradient we see today,with decreasing species richness away fromvolcanoes. Most people think of volcanoes asdestructive and frightening, but this researchshows that for many species in icy regions,volcanoes might represent something much morepositive—a chance for survival in an extreme andharsh climate.

Which of the following best describes the relationship between the two passages?

A) Passage 1 focuses on life adapted to extremeenvironments, while Passage 2 focuses onenvironments that have sheltered life fromextreme conditions.

B) Passage 1 argues that life can exist in extremeconditions, while Passage 2 argues that liferequires warmth to survive.

C) Passage 1 states that most Antarctic speciesdate back thousands of years, while Passage 2states that most of Antarctica’s diversity isrecent.

D) Passage 1 fears melting ice will destroycurrent species in Antarctica, while Passage 2suggests warmth could boost survival.

supportive

argumentative

contradictory

The two passages differ in that

Both passages illustrate the idea that

Which aspect of the topic is emphasized in Passage 2, but not in Passage 1?

The two authors would most likely agree with which statement?

The approaches of the two passages to the topic differ in that only Passage 1