Direction for questions (9-12): Read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.
[…] Despite what the haters might think, all areas of science confront questions that can’t be answered within the process of science itself. Whenever scientists examine the best way to test a theory, or wonder how scientific models relate to reality, they’re doing philosophy. But in its unique position as the study of the whole of existence, cosmology in particular is full of philosophical puzzles and positions.
In fact, there’s a philosophical belief hiding at the very heart of cosmology. The cosmological principle states that, on large scales, the Universe is homogeneous (looks the same at all locations) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions). For example, the view from a ship in the middle of the ocean would be isotropic but, when land is in sight, the view is not the same in all directions. The ocean surface itself is homogeneous, perhaps, until you get near the shore.
The cosmological principle is fundamental to our understanding of how the Universe evolved, expanding from a uniform, hot plasma and cooling to form the intricate cosmic web we can now see through our telescopes. To assume homogeneity and isotropy everywhere, one must first average over insignificant, smaller differences, such as whole planets and even galaxies. The cosmological principle is thus a statistical principle: it is true only if you apply it to large-enough scales.
But even then, it might not be true. The Universe need not be homogeneous; Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity works just fine if it isn’t, and gravity causes structures to grow over time, exaggerating tiny initial differences. Whether these initial differences came from the ‘quantum fluctuations’ of virtual particles popping into and out of existence is unresolved.
So scientists are left in a state of hesitant acceptance. The cosmological principle is foundational to how we describe the evolution of the Universe, yet so far we’ve been unable to prove that it’s necessarily true. Attempts to measure whether the Universe is homogeneous – or at what scale it becomes homogeneous – have met with mixed results. But cosmological isotropy has indeed been observed: the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, emitted from everywhere in the Universe a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, is isotropic to one part in 100,000. Analogously, our ship in the ocean might see tiny differences, such as little choppy waves, but the view is largely isotropic.
Now, it’s possible to get isotropy without homogeneity. To an observer in the centre of a spherical distribution of matter, things look the same in all directions, but such a distribution need not be homogeneous. However, many cosmologists are content to believe that homogeneity at some scale exists, whether or not it’s been measured – because with the help of a non-empirical, philosophical principle, homogeneity logically follows from isotropy.
This is known as the Copernican principle, which states that there are no privileged observers – we are not in a special place in the Universe, and the centre is certainly a very special place. By this principle, the Universe must be isotropic everywhere, from all vantage points and not just ours – and in order for that to be true, the Universe must be homogeneous as well. If every ship sees a view that looks isotropic, there must be no land to make things look any different, so the ocean must be the same at each location. […]
Direction for questions (9-12): Read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.
[…] Despite what the haters might think, all areas of science confront questions that can’t be answered within the process of science itself. Whenever scientists examine the best way to test a theory, or wonder how scientific models relate to reality, they’re doing philosophy. But in its unique position as the study of the whole of existence, cosmology in particular is full of philosophical puzzles and positions.
In fact, there’s a philosophical belief hiding at the very heart of cosmology. The cosmological principle states that, on large scales, the Universe is homogeneous (looks the same at all locations) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions). For example, the view from a ship in the middle of the ocean would be isotropic but, when land is in sight, the view is not the same in all directions. The ocean surface itself is homogeneous, perhaps, until you get near the shore.
The cosmological principle is fundamental to our understanding of how the Universe evolved, expanding from a uniform, hot plasma and cooling to form the intricate cosmic web we can now see through our telescopes. To assume homogeneity and isotropy everywhere, one must first average over insignificant, smaller differences, such as whole planets and even galaxies. The cosmological principle is thus a statistical principle: it is true only if you apply it to large-enough scales.
But even then, it might not be true. The Universe need not be homogeneous; Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity works just fine if it isn’t, and gravity causes structures to grow over time, exaggerating tiny initial differences. Whether these initial differences came from the ‘quantum fluctuations’ of virtual particles popping into and out of existence is unresolved.
So scientists are left in a state of hesitant acceptance. The cosmological principle is foundational to how we describe the evolution of the Universe, yet so far we’ve been unable to prove that it’s necessarily true. Attempts to measure whether the Universe is homogeneous – or at what scale it becomes homogeneous – have met with mixed results. But cosmological isotropy has indeed been observed: the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, emitted from everywhere in the Universe a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, is isotropic to one part in 100,000. Analogously, our ship in the ocean might see tiny differences, such as little choppy waves, but the view is largely isotropic.
Now, it’s possible to get isotropy without homogeneity. To an observer in the centre of a spherical distribution of matter, things look the same in all directions, but such a distribution need not be homogeneous. However, many cosmologists are content to believe that homogeneity at some scale exists, whether or not it’s been measured – because with the help of a non-empirical, philosophical principle, homogeneity logically follows from isotropy.
This is known as the Copernican principle, which states that there are no privileged observers – we are not in a special place in the Universe, and the centre is certainly a very special place. By this principle, the Universe must be isotropic everywhere, from all vantage points and not just ours – and in order for that to be true, the Universe must be homogeneous as well. If every ship sees a view that looks isotropic, there must be no land to make things look any different, so the ocean must be the same at each location. […]
Direction for questions (9-12): Read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.
[…] Despite what the haters might think, all areas of science confront questions that can’t be answered within the process of science itself. Whenever scientists examine the best way to test a theory, or wonder how scientific models relate to reality, they’re doing philosophy. But in its unique position as the study of the whole of existence, cosmology in particular is full of philosophical puzzles and positions.
In fact, there’s a philosophical belief hiding at the very heart of cosmology. The cosmological principle states that, on large scales, the Universe is homogeneous (looks the same at all locations) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions). For example, the view from a ship in the middle of the ocean would be isotropic but, when land is in sight, the view is not the same in all directions. The ocean surface itself is homogeneous, perhaps, until you get near the shore.
The cosmological principle is fundamental to our understanding of how the Universe evolved, expanding from a uniform, hot plasma and cooling to form the intricate cosmic web we can now see through our telescopes. To assume homogeneity and isotropy everywhere, one must first average over insignificant, smaller differences, such as whole planets and even galaxies. The cosmological principle is thus a statistical principle: it is true only if you apply it to large-enough scales.
But even then, it might not be true. The Universe need not be homogeneous; Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity works just fine if it isn’t, and gravity causes structures to grow over time, exaggerating tiny initial differences. Whether these initial differences came from the ‘quantum fluctuations’ of virtual particles popping into and out of existence is unresolved.
So scientists are left in a state of hesitant acceptance. The cosmological principle is foundational to how we describe the evolution of the Universe, yet so far we’ve been unable to prove that it’s necessarily true. Attempts to measure whether the Universe is homogeneous – or at what scale it becomes homogeneous – have met with mixed results. But cosmological isotropy has indeed been observed: the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, emitted from everywhere in the Universe a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, is isotropic to one part in 100,000. Analogously, our ship in the ocean might see tiny differences, such as little choppy waves, but the view is largely isotropic.
Now, it’s possible to get isotropy without homogeneity. To an observer in the centre of a spherical distribution of matter, things look the same in all directions, but such a distribution need not be homogeneous. However, many cosmologists are content to believe that homogeneity at some scale exists, whether or not it’s been measured – because with the help of a non-empirical, philosophical principle, homogeneity logically follows from isotropy.
This is known as the Copernican principle, which states that there are no privileged observers – we are not in a special place in the Universe, and the centre is certainly a very special place. By this principle, the Universe must be isotropic everywhere, from all vantage points and not just ours – and in order for that to be true, the Universe must be homogeneous as well. If every ship sees a view that looks isotropic, there must be no land to make things look any different, so the ocean must be the same at each location. […]
Direction for questions (9-12): Read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.
[…] Despite what the haters might think, all areas of science confront questions that can’t be answered within the process of science itself. Whenever scientists examine the best way to test a theory, or wonder how scientific models relate to reality, they’re doing philosophy. But in its unique position as the study of the whole of existence, cosmology in particular is full of philosophical puzzles and positions.
In fact, there’s a philosophical belief hiding at the very heart of cosmology. The cosmological principle states that, on large scales, the Universe is homogeneous (looks the same at all locations) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions). For example, the view from a ship in the middle of the ocean would be isotropic but, when land is in sight, the view is not the same in all directions. The ocean surface itself is homogeneous, perhaps, until you get near the shore.
The cosmological principle is fundamental to our understanding of how the Universe evolved, expanding from a uniform, hot plasma and cooling to form the intricate cosmic web we can now see through our telescopes. To assume homogeneity and isotropy everywhere, one must first average over insignificant, smaller differences, such as whole planets and even galaxies. The cosmological principle is thus a statistical principle: it is true only if you apply it to large-enough scales.
But even then, it might not be true. The Universe need not be homogeneous; Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity works just fine if it isn’t, and gravity causes structures to grow over time, exaggerating tiny initial differences. Whether these initial differences came from the ‘quantum fluctuations’ of virtual particles popping into and out of existence is unresolved.
So scientists are left in a state of hesitant acceptance. The cosmological principle is foundational to how we describe the evolution of the Universe, yet so far we’ve been unable to prove that it’s necessarily true. Attempts to measure whether the Universe is homogeneous – or at what scale it becomes homogeneous – have met with mixed results. But cosmological isotropy has indeed been observed: the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, emitted from everywhere in the Universe a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, is isotropic to one part in 100,000. Analogously, our ship in the ocean might see tiny differences, such as little choppy waves, but the view is largely isotropic.
Now, it’s possible to get isotropy without homogeneity. To an observer in the centre of a spherical distribution of matter, things look the same in all directions, but such a distribution need not be homogeneous. However, many cosmologists are content to believe that homogeneity at some scale exists, whether or not it’s been measured – because with the help of a non-empirical, philosophical principle, homogeneity logically follows from isotropy.
This is known as the Copernican principle, which states that there are no privileged observers – we are not in a special place in the Universe, and the centre is certainly a very special place. By this principle, the Universe must be isotropic everywhere, from all vantage points and not just ours – and in order for that to be true, the Universe must be homogeneous as well. If every ship sees a view that looks isotropic, there must be no land to make things look any different, so the ocean must be the same at each location. […]
Direction for questions (13-16): Read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.
Anorexia is the third most chronic illness among adolescents. It leads more often to death than any other mental illness. Therapies that have the greatest success involve extensive family engagement, with parents undertaking the task of persuading the child to eat. It’s exhausting and terrifying and demanding for parents, especially if recovery is slow.
Now a new study from Columbia University has identified for the first time what’s going on in the brain when anorexics make a decision about what to eat. By using fMRIs, the researchers found that when they decide what food to eat, people with anorexia are engaging a part of the brain that is associated with the habitual control of actions, rather than the part of the brain which is associated with values.
This suggests that anorexics don’t decide what to eat or not to eat because they need to lose or gain weight; the brain has just gotten into the habit of deciding not to eat. “The part of the brain they’re using is different from the part of the brain healthy people seem to be using,” says Daphna Shohamy, a neuroscientist and one of the authors of the study.
While the study was small—just 21 participants with anorexia and 21 without—and did not set out to look for treatment options, there were some implications for parents struggling with an anorexic child. “When we talk about the study with parents it makes an awful lot of sense to them,” says Dr. Joanna Steinglass, who specializes in anorexia and worked on the study along with Karin Foerde of New York University and Timothy Walsh of Columbia. “They see habits as they get laid down. They see the behaviour become entrenched. They see behaviour becoming hard to change. What we’ve now done is begun to look at what basic mechanisms would be that might explain it.”
One of the clear implications seems to be that family-based therapy is more likely to work than just talk therapy, since it appears to be the behaviour that needs to change, not any given set of beliefs, or how a patient is feeling that day. “Treatments are going to have to focus in on the behaviour in order to be successful,” says Dr. Steinglass.
The study suggests that parents might want to try various strategies to get the kid’s brain out of the habit of deciding to eat very little food. It’s possible, says Dr. Steinglass that the cue that sets off the behaviour could be changed. “Before [the anorexia sufferers] walk into the meal, before they pick up the fork and knife, what could you do instead of what you always do that might shake it up a little?”
She tells the story of a parent at a conference whose child cut up their food into very small pieces before eating it. One way to short-circuit such behaviour, she suggests, might be to get the child to eat with only his or her left hand. “It’s a very over simplified but useful illustration,” Dr. Steinglass says. “If you try eating with your left hand, does that just slow the whole meal down enough that you can pay attention? It helps raise awareness of what you’re doing.”
Another way the study might help parents is in addressing this as a brain problem and not a willpower problem. “Parents seem to find helpful to understand that something has happened where behaviours have gotten stuck,” says Dr. Steinglass. “It’s not really about logical thinking at this point.”
Direction for questions (13-16): Read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.
Anorexia is the third most chronic illness among adolescents. It leads more often to death than any other mental illness. Therapies that have the greatest success involve extensive family engagement, with parents undertaking the task of persuading the child to eat. It’s exhausting and terrifying and demanding for parents, especially if recovery is slow.
Now a new study from Columbia University has identified for the first time what’s going on in the brain when anorexics make a decision about what to eat. By using fMRIs, the researchers found that when they decide what food to eat, people with anorexia are engaging a part of the brain that is associated with the habitual control of actions, rather than the part of the brain which is associated with values.
This suggests that anorexics don’t decide what to eat or not to eat because they need to lose or gain weight; the brain has just gotten into the habit of deciding not to eat. “The part of the brain they’re using is different from the part of the brain healthy people seem to be using,” says Daphna Shohamy, a neuroscientist and one of the authors of the study.
While the study was small—just 21 participants with anorexia and 21 without—and did not set out to look for treatment options, there were some implications for parents struggling with an anorexic child. “When we talk about the study with parents it makes an awful lot of sense to them,” says Dr. Joanna Steinglass, who specializes in anorexia and worked on the study along with Karin Foerde of New York University and Timothy Walsh of Columbia. “They see habits as they get laid down. They see the behaviour become entrenched. They see behaviour becoming hard to change. What we’ve now done is begun to look at what basic mechanisms would be that might explain it.”
One of the clear implications seems to be that family-based therapy is more likely to work than just talk therapy, since it appears to be the behaviour that needs to change, not any given set of beliefs, or how a patient is feeling that day. “Treatments are going to have to focus in on the behaviour in order to be successful,” says Dr. Steinglass.
The study suggests that parents might want to try various strategies to get the kid’s brain out of the habit of deciding to eat very little food. It’s possible, says Dr. Steinglass that the cue that sets off the behaviour could be changed. “Before [the anorexia sufferers] walk into the meal, before they pick up the fork and knife, what could you do instead of what you always do that might shake it up a little?”
She tells the story of a parent at a conference whose child cut up their food into very small pieces before eating it. One way to short-circuit such behaviour, she suggests, might be to get the child to eat with only his or her left hand. “It’s a very over simplified but useful illustration,” Dr. Steinglass says. “If you try eating with your left hand, does that just slow the whole meal down enough that you can pay attention? It helps raise awareness of what you’re doing.”
Another way the study might help parents is in addressing this as a brain problem and not a willpower problem. “Parents seem to find helpful to understand that something has happened where behaviours have gotten stuck,” says Dr. Steinglass. “It’s not really about logical thinking at this point.”
Direction for questions (13-16): Read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.
Anorexia is the third most chronic illness among adolescents. It leads more often to death than any other mental illness. Therapies that have the greatest success involve extensive family engagement, with parents undertaking the task of persuading the child to eat. It’s exhausting and terrifying and demanding for parents, especially if recovery is slow.
Now a new study from Columbia University has identified for the first time what’s going on in the brain when anorexics make a decision about what to eat. By using fMRIs, the researchers found that when they decide what food to eat, people with anorexia are engaging a part of the brain that is associated with the habitual control of actions, rather than the part of the brain which is associated with values.
This suggests that anorexics don’t decide what to eat or not to eat because they need to lose or gain weight; the brain has just gotten into the habit of deciding not to eat. “The part of the brain they’re using is different from the part of the brain healthy people seem to be using,” says Daphna Shohamy, a neuroscientist and one of the authors of the study.
While the study was small—just 21 participants with anorexia and 21 without—and did not set out to look for treatment options, there were some implications for parents struggling with an anorexic child. “When we talk about the study with parents it makes an awful lot of sense to them,” says Dr. Joanna Steinglass, who specializes in anorexia and worked on the study along with Karin Foerde of New York University and Timothy Walsh of Columbia. “They see habits as they get laid down. They see the behaviour become entrenched. They see behaviour becoming hard to change. What we’ve now done is begun to look at what basic mechanisms would be that might explain it.”
One of the clear implications seems to be that family-based therapy is more likely to work than just talk therapy, since it appears to be the behaviour that needs to change, not any given set of beliefs, or how a patient is feeling that day. “Treatments are going to have to focus in on the behaviour in order to be successful,” says Dr. Steinglass.
The study suggests that parents might want to try various strategies to get the kid’s brain out of the habit of deciding to eat very little food. It’s possible, says Dr. Steinglass that the cue that sets off the behaviour could be changed. “Before [the anorexia sufferers] walk into the meal, before they pick up the fork and knife, what could you do instead of what you always do that might shake it up a little?”
She tells the story of a parent at a conference whose child cut up their food into very small pieces before eating it. One way to short-circuit such behaviour, she suggests, might be to get the child to eat with only his or her left hand. “It’s a very over simplified but useful illustration,” Dr. Steinglass says. “If you try eating with your left hand, does that just slow the whole meal down enough that you can pay attention? It helps raise awareness of what you’re doing.”
Another way the study might help parents is in addressing this as a brain problem and not a willpower problem. “Parents seem to find helpful to understand that something has happened where behaviours have gotten stuck,” says Dr. Steinglass. “It’s not really about logical thinking at this point.”
Direction for questions (13-16): Read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.
Anorexia is the third most chronic illness among adolescents. It leads more often to death than any other mental illness. Therapies that have the greatest success involve extensive family engagement, with parents undertaking the task of persuading the child to eat. It’s exhausting and terrifying and demanding for parents, especially if recovery is slow.
Now a new study from Columbia University has identified for the first time what’s going on in the brain when anorexics make a decision about what to eat. By using fMRIs, the researchers found that when they decide what food to eat, people with anorexia are engaging a part of the brain that is associated with the habitual control of actions, rather than the part of the brain which is associated with values.
This suggests that anorexics don’t decide what to eat or not to eat because they need to lose or gain weight; the brain has just gotten into the habit of deciding not to eat. “The part of the brain they’re using is different from the part of the brain healthy people seem to be using,” says Daphna Shohamy, a neuroscientist and one of the authors of the study.
While the study was small—just 21 participants with anorexia and 21 without—and did not set out to look for treatment options, there were some implications for parents struggling with an anorexic child. “When we talk about the study with parents it makes an awful lot of sense to them,” says Dr. Joanna Steinglass, who specializes in anorexia and worked on the study along with Karin Foerde of New York University and Timothy Walsh of Columbia. “They see habits as they get laid down. They see the behaviour become entrenched. They see behaviour becoming hard to change. What we’ve now done is begun to look at what basic mechanisms would be that might explain it.”
One of the clear implications seems to be that family-based therapy is more likely to work than just talk therapy, since it appears to be the behaviour that needs to change, not any given set of beliefs, or how a patient is feeling that day. “Treatments are going to have to focus in on the behaviour in order to be successful,” says Dr. Steinglass.
The study suggests that parents might want to try various strategies to get the kid’s brain out of the habit of deciding to eat very little food. It’s possible, says Dr. Steinglass that the cue that sets off the behaviour could be changed. “Before [the anorexia sufferers] walk into the meal, before they pick up the fork and knife, what could you do instead of what you always do that might shake it up a little?”
She tells the story of a parent at a conference whose child cut up their food into very small pieces before eating it. One way to short-circuit such behaviour, she suggests, might be to get the child to eat with only his or her left hand. “It’s a very over simplified but useful illustration,” Dr. Steinglass says. “If you try eating with your left hand, does that just slow the whole meal down enough that you can pay attention? It helps raise awareness of what you’re doing.”
Another way the study might help parents is in addressing this as a brain problem and not a willpower problem. “Parents seem to find helpful to understand that something has happened where behaviours have gotten stuck,” says Dr. Steinglass. “It’s not really about logical thinking at this point.”
Q 17. Directions for question (17): The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) given in this question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper order for the sentences and key in this sequence of four numbers as your answer.
1. For the latter, it’s a matter of quantum bits that can assume any arrangement of 0s and 1s.
2. The crucial difference between a supercomputer and a quantum computer is the way they store information.
3. No, this doesn’t mean that a quantum bit can, like Schrodinger’s cat.
4. For the former it’s a matter, as with any conventional computer, of binary bits, 1s and 0s.
|
|
Q 18. Directions for question (18): The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) given in this question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper order for the sentences and key in this sequence of four numbers as your answer.
1. Lowering the temperature both at the surface and in the interior means reducing more of the weights.
2. This switch is a phase transition analogous to the freezing of water.
3. As the deep temperature is lowered, DeGiuli sees an abrupt switch from context-free grammars that are random and disorderly to ones that have high information content.
4. He thinks that something like this switch may explain why, at a certain stage of development, a child learns very quickly how to construct grammatical sentences.
|
|
Q 20. Directions for question (20): Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out.
1. Thus, it was preserved in the lifelike form now on display.
2. Over millions of years on the ocean floor, minerals took the place of the dinosaur’s armour and skin.
3. It has taken researchers 7,000 hours over the course of the last six years to test and display the remains.
4. Researchers suggest that the creature “may have been swept away by a flooded river and carried out to sea, where it eventually sank.”
5. How the dinosaur mummy could remain so intact is still something of a mystery.
|
|
Q 21. Directions for question (21): The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) given in this question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper order for the sentences and key in this sequence of four numbers as your answer.
1. This effect becomes important when the acceleration due to gravity falls below a certain threshold, as it does in the outer reaches of galaxies.
2. If f (R ) theories try to do away with dark energy, theories of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) do away with dark matter.
3. Effectively, gravity no longer weakens with distance, explaining why stars and gas in the outskirts of galaxies orbit just as fast as they do near the core.
4. In this approach, objects respond differently to gravity than Isaac Newton envisaged.
|
|
Q 22. Directions for question (22): The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best captures the author’s position.
Some analysis of ancient chariots provide that the Egyptians greatly improved the design of this vehicle. However, while they certainly did make improvements to certain parts of the chariot, it is arguable whether the Egyptian chariot was better, or simply designed for a different purpose and terrain than others in the Middle East. For example, the Egyptian chariot had a metal covering for the axes, which reduced friction, and this was certainly an improvement. Also, some wooden parts were strengthened by covering them with metal sleeves. However, the fact that the Egyptian chariots were lighter and faster than those of other major powers in the Middle East may not have been considered an absolute improvement in the chariot's design.
|
| 1) Although the Egyptians improved the overall design of the chariot, it was no match for the Middle Eastern designs. |
| 2) Research finds that the Egyptians improved the overall design of the ancient chariots; however, questions exist as to the overall efficacy of these. |
| 3) Some analysts find that the Egyptians improved upon the overall structure of the chariot while others feel that the Egyptians had an unfair advantage in terms of a better terrain and speed. |
| 4) The wooden parts and metal sleeves made the Egyptians chariots better than the Middle Eastern ones. |
Q 23. Directions for question (23): Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out.
1. Degradation of the environment is harming the poor and making them even worse off.
2. Scientists need to make sure that people understand that caring for the environment is caring for the poor.
3. Throughout the world the poor are often victims of environmental degradation.
4. So, it is an essential issue for religious people to get engaged in.
5. And one of the most important things that religion teaches us is that what God cares most about, is the poor.
|
|
Question Paper
Instructions
