Reading Comprehension - 10

The author’s idea can be concluded best by which of the following options?

Passage 5
Why have public expenditures in India failed to deliver basic services to the majority of poor citizens, when political representatives taking decisions over public resource allocation depend upon the support of the poor to win office? India is unique in the developing world not only in sustaining democratic elections to multiple tiers of government over an extended period of time, but also in extensive participation in the political process by its poor and disadvantaged citizens, which by several accounts have been increasing over time.

The author is primarily concerned with

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

Nearly twenty years ago, biochemists found that a separable constituent of deoxyribonucleic acid (or DNA) appeared to guide the cell’s protein-synthesising machinery. The internal structure of DNA seemed to represent a set of coded instructions which dictated the pattern of protein - synthesis. Experiments indicated that in the presence of appropriate enzymes each DNA molecule could form a replica, a new DNA molecule, containing the specific guiding message present in the original. This idea, when added to what was already known about the cellular mechanisms of heredity (especially the knowledge that DNA is localised in chromosomes), appeared to establish a molecular basis for inheritance.
Proponents of the theory that DNA was a “self duplicating” molecule, containing a code that by itself determined biological inheritance, introduced the term “central dogma” into scientific literature. They did so in order to describe the principles that could explain the DNA’s governing role. The dogma originally involved an admittedly unproven assumption that, whereas nucleic acids can guide the synthesis of other nucleic acids and of proteins, the reverse effect is impossible; that is, proteins cannot guide the synthesis of nucleic acids. But actual experimental observations deny the second and crucial part of this assumption. Other test-tube experiments show that agents besides DNA have a guiding influence. The kind of protein that is made may depend on the specific organism from which the necessary enzyme is obtained. It also depends on the test tube’s temperature, the degree of acidity, and the amount of metallic salts present. The central dogma banishes from consideration the interactions among the numerous molecular processes that have been discovered in cells or in their extracted fluids. In the living cell, molecular processes — the synthesis of nucleic acids and proteins or the oxidation of food substance — are not separate but interact in exceedingly complex ways. No matter how many ingredients the biochemists’ test tubes may contain, the mixtures are nonliving. However, these same ingredients, organised by the subtle structure of the cell, constitute a system which is alive. Consider an example from another field. At ordinary temperatures, electricity flows only so long as a driving force from a battery or generator is imposed upon the circuit. At temperatures near absolute zero, metals exhibit superconductivity: a unique property that causes an electric current to flow for months after the voltage is cut off.
Although independent electrons exist in a metal at ordinary temperatures, at very low temperatures they interact with the metal’s atomic structure in such a way as to lose their individual identities and form a coordinated, collective system which gives rise to superconductivity.
Such discoveries of modern physics show that the unique properties of a complex system are not necessarily explicable solely by the properties that can be observed in its isolated parts. We can expect to find a similar situation in the complex chemical system of the living cells.

The author’s argument is directed against which of the following?

(i) The use of test-tube experimentation alone to establish the validity of scientific theories
(ii) The exclusion of experimental facts from the formation of scientific theories
(iii) The observation of certain cellular components in isolation

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

Nearly twenty years ago, biochemists found that a separable constituent of deoxyribonucleic acid (or DNA) appeared to guide the cell’s protein-synthesising machinery. The internal structure of DNA seemed to represent a set of coded instructions which dictated the pattern of protein - synthesis. Experiments indicated that in the presence of appropriate enzymes each DNA molecule could form a replica, a new DNA molecule, containing the specific guiding message present in the original. This idea, when added to what was already known about the cellular mechanisms of heredity (especially the knowledge that DNA is localised in chromosomes), appeared to establish a molecular basis for inheritance.
Proponents of the theory that DNA was a “self duplicating” molecule, containing a code that by itself determined biological inheritance, introduced the term “central dogma” into scientific literature. They did so in order to describe the principles that could explain the DNA’s governing role. The dogma originally involved an admittedly unproven assumption that, whereas nucleic acids can guide the synthesis of other nucleic acids and of proteins, the reverse effect is impossible; that is, proteins cannot guide the synthesis of nucleic acids. But actual experimental observations deny the second and crucial part of this assumption. Other test-tube experiments show that agents besides DNA have a guiding influence. The kind of protein that is made may depend on the specific organism from which the necessary enzyme is obtained. It also depends on the test tube’s temperature, the degree of acidity, and the amount of metallic salts present. The central dogma banishes from consideration the interactions among the numerous molecular processes that have been discovered in cells or in their extracted fluids. In the living cell, molecular processes — the synthesis of nucleic acids and proteins or the oxidation of food substance — are not separate but interact in exceedingly complex ways. No matter how many ingredients the biochemists’ test tubes may contain, the mixtures are nonliving. However, these same ingredients, organised by the subtle structure of the cell, constitute a system which is alive. Consider an example from another field. At ordinary temperatures, electricity flows only so long as a driving force from a battery or generator is imposed upon the circuit. At temperatures near absolute zero, metals exhibit superconductivity: a unique property that causes an electric current to flow for months after the voltage is cut off.
Although independent electrons exist in a metal at ordinary temperatures, at very low temperatures they interact with the metal’s atomic structure in such a way as to lose their individual identities and form a coordinated, collective system which gives rise to superconductivity.
Such discoveries of modern physics show that the unique properties of a complex system are not necessarily explicable solely by the properties that can be observed in its isolated parts. We can expect to find a similar situation in the complex chemical system of the living cells.

What according to the author is the reason that the champagne and wines taste different in different glasses?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

Do you recall the pleasure of discovering a new brand that actually delivers something that is perceptively superior to an existing one? It usually doesn’t involve an entirely new approach or radical departure from conventional wisdom — one feels the product in question is effortlessly superior to whatever the previous standard was. This happened to me when I purchased my first pair of Timberland boots in the late Seventies from a cubbyhole of a shop in High Street Kensington. They looked just like other boots but were amazing — robust, comfortable and durable — something I confirmed while I tramped along the Thai - Cambodia border attempting to assist refugees fleeing from the Khmer Rouge.
These days, Timberland has established itself as a clothing, beachwear, and accessories brand, turning out scores of designer boots, shoes, slip - ons and deck shoes. Nowadays they are fully up to speed about their carbon footprint and recently acquired a company with a range of accessories for skateboarders. It is still a good brand, but there is that niggling feeling that Timberland is merely a fashion statement rather than a mould - breaking take on the work boot for the leisured classes.
Like Timberland, Riedel, the pioneer wine glass makers, knocked me sideways when I first tasted Bordeaux from their specially designed glass. It was state - of - the - art and effective; if you ever doubted the curve of a wine glass could completely alter the wine’s taste, you only had to drink an identical wine from two differently designed wine glasses. I can assure you, a Bordeaux tasted from a Burgundy glass was completely different. Various grape varieties taste differently according to the glass used because they affect specific parts of the palate, so that if the wine is “thrown” towards a particular portion of the roof of the mouth, different taste sensations arise.
Riedel glassware turn out their traditional quality products that are more or less still at the summit for their type. However, they now feel impelled to diversify in the desire to “expand the brand”, perhaps aiming to cover all bases while consumers still have a jangle in their sparechange pocket. Or perhaps, having enjoyed enormous growth off the back of a single, simple and inspired idea in the 1950s, Riedel, like Timberland, is experiencing a midlife crisis of sorts.
To celebrate their fiftieth anniversary, Riedel have launched the “Sommeliers Black Tie Range”, ultraexpensive glasses from £50 to £80 a throw. Doubtless there will be a market for these glasses in the tuxedo - wearing classes. The stems are black so when you eye up a filled glass on your banqueting table, it appears that the Lafleur ‘47 (or is it Kangarouge NV?) goes all the way down to the base. To help those hard of seeing, the white wine version merely has a black base and a clear stem. And that’s not all  — Riedel now have something “to wow your guests” called NachtmannBossa Nova plates, which “show off your culinary  presentation skills”. Help! Get me out of here! All I ever wanted was a sturdy pair of boots and a perfect glass for my Bordeaux — not some sort of lifestyle nightmare. It might be time to consider the impact of appropriate glasses for various wines. We should start with Champagne as virtually no one except celebrants at Mongolian National day in Ulan Bator uses those old saucer-shaped ones (Champagne coupes, they’re called). Little - known fact: the shape was allegedly based on Marie - Antoinette’s breast. The slender flute is now the preferred Champagne shape, although I have yet to hear anyone claim it is based on any part of the anatomy of Louis XVI. The flute is superior because it manages to contain the bubbles of the Champagne — and provided you are drinking something not mass-produced by the lifestyle people, you can actually smell its nose.
Flying in the face of this advice, the most memorable Champagne I ever tasted was Cristal Rosé served in a plastic cup on a Eurostar as it pulled out of Paris. We had just spent the night at Chateau de Saran in Epernay drinking no end of different vintages of Dom Perignon, including their rare RosÃ. One of our party thought that while those wines were perfectly acceptable, they didn’t compare to the charms of Cristal RosÃ. I still have no idea how he managed to slip away from the queue at the Gare du Nord and return triumphant, clutching a handful of plastic cups. Even with the handicap of the drinking vessel, it managed to transcend anything we had drunk in the past day or two. I have no doubt it would have been even more ethereal in a flute. The same would apply to my first experience of Latour ‘59, served up in a stone mug on a stem. I drank it with a passionate socialist friend (later a Labour Government Minister) who believed that despite his privileged upbringing, it was only just that one of the greatest wines of the century should be served at his table in earthenware. I watched in horror as he expounded on some now obscure point of the class struggle between slurps from his mug. At the reverse end of the spectrum, I have drunk several bottles of Cheval Blanc ‘83 with a hedge fund owner who insists on serving this glorious wine in eighteenth century crystal, which for all I know could have been Marie - Antoinette’s. It still managed to strut its stuff — no easy task when the crystal is as thick as a bottle top. However, even he was dumbstruck when I arrived with a series of tasting glasses and thought it would be amusing to compare them. The quality leap was discernable but sadly I was not affluent enough to gift them to him, so it will be back to the ancient regime.
Riedel are not the only option when it comes to fine wine; at present I prefer drinking fine Bordeaux from very thin tasting glasses, half the dimensions of the classic Riedel variety. However, Riedel do deserve huge credit for introducing the concept of wine - specific glasses, ranging from Bordeaux and Burgundies to Chianti and red Rhônes.
I recently went to a dinner in honour of Georg Riedel in London, where he had vast displays of his glassware, including the dreaded Black Tie ones. It was tad gratuitous to put up a Riedel glass of Grand - Puy - Lacoste ‘01 against a plastic cup with the same wine. No prizes for which tasted more interesting and revealed more of its character. Still, he is a craftsman and deserves honour. I only wish that the human race wasn’t genetically impelled to always expand and hunt for new markets. It is nothing very new, historically. When the Emperor Augustus died, his will instructed his successor not to expand the boundaries of the Empire, but before too many centuries the legions became restless and began appointing their own Emperors, such was their shame at not being allowed to conquer and pillage. I don’t have any fears about Riedel going down this fatal route if they stopped spreading themselves into the wider philistine world of the consumer. On the contrary, I won’t be too surprised when I hear of the Alcopops Riedel glass or the eco -   friendly slingback Timberland.

Which of the following options would be the best choice to define the purpose of writing this passage?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

Do you recall the pleasure of discovering a new brand that actually delivers something that is perceptively superior to an existing one? It usually doesn’t involve an entirely new approach or radical departure from conventional wisdom — one feels the product in question is effortlessly superior to whatever the previous standard was. This happened to me when I purchased my first pair of Timberland boots in the late Seventies from a cubbyhole of a shop in High Street Kensington. They looked just like other boots but were amazing — robust, comfortable and durable — something I confirmed while I tramped along the Thai - Cambodia border attempting to assist refugees fleeing from the Khmer Rouge.
These days, Timberland has established itself as a clothing, beachwear, and accessories brand, turning out scores of designer boots, shoes, slip - ons and deck shoes. Nowadays they are fully up to speed about their carbon footprint and recently acquired a company with a range of accessories for skateboarders. It is still a good brand, but there is that niggling feeling that Timberland is merely a fashion statement rather than a mould - breaking take on the work boot for the leisured classes.
Like Timberland, Riedel, the pioneer wine glass makers, knocked me sideways when I first tasted Bordeaux from their specially designed glass. It was state - of - the - art and effective; if you ever doubted the curve of a wine glass could completely alter the wine’s taste, you only had to drink an identical wine from two differently designed wine glasses. I can assure you, a Bordeaux tasted from a Burgundy glass was completely different. Various grape varieties taste differently according to the glass used because they affect specific parts of the palate, so that if the wine is “thrown” towards a particular portion of the roof of the mouth, different taste sensations arise.
Riedel glassware turn out their traditional quality products that are more or less still at the summit for their type. However, they now feel impelled to diversify in the desire to “expand the brand”, perhaps aiming to cover all bases while consumers still have a jangle in their sparechange pocket. Or perhaps, having enjoyed enormous growth off the back of a single, simple and inspired idea in the 1950s, Riedel, like Timberland, is experiencing a midlife crisis of sorts.
To celebrate their fiftieth anniversary, Riedel have launched the “Sommeliers Black Tie Range”, ultraexpensive glasses from £50 to £80 a throw. Doubtless there will be a market for these glasses in the tuxedo - wearing classes. The stems are black so when you eye up a filled glass on your banqueting table, it appears that the Lafleur ‘47 (or is it Kangarouge NV?) goes all the way down to the base. To help those hard of seeing, the white wine version merely has a black base and a clear stem. And that’s not all  — Riedel now have something “to wow your guests” called NachtmannBossa Nova plates, which “show off your culinary  presentation skills”. Help! Get me out of here! All I ever wanted was a sturdy pair of boots and a perfect glass for my Bordeaux — not some sort of lifestyle nightmare. It might be time to consider the impact of appropriate glasses for various wines. We should start with Champagne as virtually no one except celebrants at Mongolian National day in Ulan Bator uses those old saucer-shaped ones (Champagne coupes, they’re called). Little - known fact: the shape was allegedly based on Marie - Antoinette’s breast. The slender flute is now the preferred Champagne shape, although I have yet to hear anyone claim it is based on any part of the anatomy of Louis XVI. The flute is superior because it manages to contain the bubbles of the Champagne — and provided you are drinking something not mass-produced by the lifestyle people, you can actually smell its nose.
Flying in the face of this advice, the most memorable Champagne I ever tasted was Cristal Rosé served in a plastic cup on a Eurostar as it pulled out of Paris. We had just spent the night at Chateau de Saran in Epernay drinking no end of different vintages of Dom Perignon, including their rare RosÃ. One of our party thought that while those wines were perfectly acceptable, they didn’t compare to the charms of Cristal RosÃ. I still have no idea how he managed to slip away from the queue at the Gare du Nord and return triumphant, clutching a handful of plastic cups. Even with the handicap of the drinking vessel, it managed to transcend anything we had drunk in the past day or two. I have no doubt it would have been even more ethereal in a flute. The same would apply to my first experience of Latour ‘59, served up in a stone mug on a stem. I drank it with a passionate socialist friend (later a Labour Government Minister) who believed that despite his privileged upbringing, it was only just that one of the greatest wines of the century should be served at his table in earthenware. I watched in horror as he expounded on some now obscure point of the class struggle between slurps from his mug. At the reverse end of the spectrum, I have drunk several bottles of Cheval Blanc ‘83 with a hedge fund owner who insists on serving this glorious wine in eighteenth century crystal, which for all I know could have been Marie - Antoinette’s. It still managed to strut its stuff — no easy task when the crystal is as thick as a bottle top. However, even he was dumbstruck when I arrived with a series of tasting glasses and thought it would be amusing to compare them. The quality leap was discernable but sadly I was not affluent enough to gift them to him, so it will be back to the ancient regime.
Riedel are not the only option when it comes to fine wine; at present I prefer drinking fine Bordeaux from very thin tasting glasses, half the dimensions of the classic Riedel variety. However, Riedel do deserve huge credit for introducing the concept of wine - specific glasses, ranging from Bordeaux and Burgundies to Chianti and red Rhônes.
I recently went to a dinner in honour of Georg Riedel in London, where he had vast displays of his glassware, including the dreaded Black Tie ones. It was tad gratuitous to put up a Riedel glass of Grand - Puy - Lacoste ‘01 against a plastic cup with the same wine. No prizes for which tasted more interesting and revealed more of its character. Still, he is a craftsman and deserves honour. I only wish that the human race wasn’t genetically impelled to always expand and hunt for new markets. It is nothing very new, historically. When the Emperor Augustus died, his will instructed his successor not to expand the boundaries of the Empire, but before too many centuries the legions became restless and began appointing their own Emperors, such was their shame at not being allowed to conquer and pillage. I don’t have any fears about Riedel going down this fatal route if they stopped spreading themselves into the wider philistine world of the consumer. On the contrary, I won’t be too surprised when I hear of the Alcopops Riedel glass or the eco -   friendly slingback Timberland.

Which of the following may be inferred from the passage?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

On the grassy slope below me was god’s precinct, a sacred spot, entered on pain of death. Indeed, worshippers of old believed that, once there, neither man nor beast could cast a shadow. In times past they had processed up this mountain in the night to reenact a ritual human sacrifice to their god — or so ancient sources tell us. At the festive meal, a person who chanced to eat human flesh mixed with the flesh of sacrificed animals would transform into a werewolf. In fact, Lykaion signifies wolf.
These enigmatic rites were celebrated not by an uncivilised people in a forgotten land but rather in the heart of classical Greece during its so - called Golden Age. The practitioners of these rites were respected Greek citizens, not fringe cultists, who worshiped Zeus, the king of the Gods. In a way, these rites were no more bizarre than countless mainstream festivals of the time: During the Athenian Thesmophoria, women retrieved the decayed bodies of piglets from pits into which they had tossed the dead animals months earlier, and in the rites of the goddess Artemis that took place at Brauron little girls impersonated bears. Like all periods of history, the Classical Age of Greece, which lasted from about 500 B.C. until the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C., was complex and contradictory, a mix of superstition and rationality that blended revolutionary concepts and age - old traditions. Classical Greece is rightly regarded as a high - water mark of civilisation. Yet the living, breathing people who created this culture did not exist merely to turn out masterpiece after masterpiece for the later Western world to study, though it may seem that way to students of the humanities reluctant to embrace the less enchanting aspects of the culture. Because so much of Western culture has its roots in classical Greece, it is easy to overlook the living context from which this heritage arose. We focus on what we know, ignoring the features that strike us as bizarre or even repugnant. The great masterpieces of ancient Greece are our heritage, but it is doubtful that any modern Western person can fully comprehend their background. How can we, in the 21st century, envision the magic spells of the sorceress Medea? Or the magic behind the routine spilling of animal blood as sacrifice? Or the use of curse objects to summon ghosts from the underworld to harm one’s enemies? Yet these practices and beliefs, as much as the spirit of democracy and the value of aesthetic beauty, formed the nerves and sinews of ancient Greek culture. To professional classicists this is old news, but to the layman these unfamiliar aspects of Classical Greece are shocking. Unfamiliar as well, to the layman, are the centuries of earlier Greek life that laid the foundation for the famous “Golden Age” we study in school. For these reasons, I determined that when I travelled to Greece, I would visit all these different eras and rituals. I would pay tribute to the Parthenon — but also examine the “voodoo dolls” in the Kerameikos Museum in Athens. On the island of Euboea, north of Athens, an unusual site demonstrates that the Golden Age did not spring into existence fully formed but instead was centuries in the making. On a nondescript hillock overlooking the sea near the town of Lefkandi, a tenth - century B.C., a grave was revealed when ground was dug up for a house. The work unearthed the remains of an elaborate cremation and burial, uncannily similar to the burials of heroes described in Homer’s Iliad. In addition to the deceased’s bones, carefully wrapped in a piece of fabric and placed in an heirloom bronze urn, excavators found evidence of a building nearly 160 feet in length that had once covered the burial site. Dating from the era traditionally known as Greece’s Dark Age — some three and a half centuries that began with the collapse of the Mycenaean world — the Lefkandi finds were a reminder that however murky or “dark” this historical period may be to us, to the people of the time it was life. The Dark Age was an age of many things: oral bards continued the tradition of transmitting the Homeric masterpieces, the Iliad and Odyssey; distinctive pottery with geometric patterns was made throughout Greece; and as the Lefkandi site indicated, people built impressive structures to bury their dead in a manner befitting heroes. Like the carefully preserved bronze urn, two centuries older than the bones it contained, ideas — and culture — were passed on from generation to generation of the Greek people.

Classical Greece is one basis of Western culture and heritage. This statement

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

On the grassy slope below me was god’s precinct, a sacred spot, entered on pain of death. Indeed, worshippers of old believed that, once there, neither man nor beast could cast a shadow. In times past they had processed up this mountain in the night to reenact a ritual human sacrifice to their god — or so ancient sources tell us. At the festive meal, a person who chanced to eat human flesh mixed with the flesh of sacrificed animals would transform into a werewolf. In fact, Lykaion signifies wolf.
These enigmatic rites were celebrated not by an uncivilised people in a forgotten land but rather in the heart of classical Greece during its so - called Golden Age. The practitioners of these rites were respected Greek citizens, not fringe cultists, who worshiped Zeus, the king of the Gods. In a way, these rites were no more bizarre than countless mainstream festivals of the time: During the Athenian Thesmophoria, women retrieved the decayed bodies of piglets from pits into which they had tossed the dead animals months earlier, and in the rites of the goddess Artemis that took place at Brauron little girls impersonated bears. Like all periods of history, the Classical Age of Greece, which lasted from about 500 B.C. until the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C., was complex and contradictory, a mix of superstition and rationality that blended revolutionary concepts and age - old traditions. Classical Greece is rightly regarded as a high - water mark of civilisation. Yet the living, breathing people who created this culture did not exist merely to turn out masterpiece after masterpiece for the later Western world to study, though it may seem that way to students of the humanities reluctant to embrace the less enchanting aspects of the culture. Because so much of Western culture has its roots in classical Greece, it is easy to overlook the living context from which this heritage arose. We focus on what we know, ignoring the features that strike us as bizarre or even repugnant. The great masterpieces of ancient Greece are our heritage, but it is doubtful that any modern Western person can fully comprehend their background. How can we, in the 21st century, envision the magic spells of the sorceress Medea? Or the magic behind the routine spilling of animal blood as sacrifice? Or the use of curse objects to summon ghosts from the underworld to harm one’s enemies? Yet these practices and beliefs, as much as the spirit of democracy and the value of aesthetic beauty, formed the nerves and sinews of ancient Greek culture. To professional classicists this is old news, but to the layman these unfamiliar aspects of Classical Greece are shocking. Unfamiliar as well, to the layman, are the centuries of earlier Greek life that laid the foundation for the famous “Golden Age” we study in school. For these reasons, I determined that when I travelled to Greece, I would visit all these different eras and rituals. I would pay tribute to the Parthenon — but also examine the “voodoo dolls” in the Kerameikos Museum in Athens. On the island of Euboea, north of Athens, an unusual site demonstrates that the Golden Age did not spring into existence fully formed but instead was centuries in the making. On a nondescript hillock overlooking the sea near the town of Lefkandi, a tenth - century B.C., a grave was revealed when ground was dug up for a house. The work unearthed the remains of an elaborate cremation and burial, uncannily similar to the burials of heroes described in Homer’s Iliad. In addition to the deceased’s bones, carefully wrapped in a piece of fabric and placed in an heirloom bronze urn, excavators found evidence of a building nearly 160 feet in length that had once covered the burial site. Dating from the era traditionally known as Greece’s Dark Age — some three and a half centuries that began with the collapse of the Mycenaean world — the Lefkandi finds were a reminder that however murky or “dark” this historical period may be to us, to the people of the time it was life. The Dark Age was an age of many things: oral bards continued the tradition of transmitting the Homeric masterpieces, the Iliad and Odyssey; distinctive pottery with geometric patterns was made throughout Greece; and as the Lefkandi site indicated, people built impressive structures to bury their dead in a manner befitting heroes. Like the carefully preserved bronze urn, two centuries older than the bones it contained, ideas — and culture — were passed on from generation to generation of the Greek people.

“Students of the humanities” are called reluctant by the author because

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

On the grassy slope below me was god’s precinct, a sacred spot, entered on pain of death. Indeed, worshippers of old believed that, once there, neither man nor beast could cast a shadow. In times past they had processed up this mountain in the night to reenact a ritual human sacrifice to their god — or so ancient sources tell us. At the festive meal, a person who chanced to eat human flesh mixed with the flesh of sacrificed animals would transform into a werewolf. In fact, Lykaion signifies wolf.
These enigmatic rites were celebrated not by an uncivilised people in a forgotten land but rather in the heart of classical Greece during its so - called Golden Age. The practitioners of these rites were respected Greek citizens, not fringe cultists, who worshiped Zeus, the king of the Gods. In a way, these rites were no more bizarre than countless mainstream festivals of the time: During the Athenian Thesmophoria, women retrieved the decayed bodies of piglets from pits into which they had tossed the dead animals months earlier, and in the rites of the goddess Artemis that took place at Brauron little girls impersonated bears. Like all periods of history, the Classical Age of Greece, which lasted from about 500 B.C. until the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C., was complex and contradictory, a mix of superstition and rationality that blended revolutionary concepts and age - old traditions. Classical Greece is rightly regarded as a high - water mark of civilisation. Yet the living, breathing people who created this culture did not exist merely to turn out masterpiece after masterpiece for the later Western world to study, though it may seem that way to students of the humanities reluctant to embrace the less enchanting aspects of the culture. Because so much of Western culture has its roots in classical Greece, it is easy to overlook the living context from which this heritage arose. We focus on what we know, ignoring the features that strike us as bizarre or even repugnant. The great masterpieces of ancient Greece are our heritage, but it is doubtful that any modern Western person can fully comprehend their background. How can we, in the 21st century, envision the magic spells of the sorceress Medea? Or the magic behind the routine spilling of animal blood as sacrifice? Or the use of curse objects to summon ghosts from the underworld to harm one’s enemies? Yet these practices and beliefs, as much as the spirit of democracy and the value of aesthetic beauty, formed the nerves and sinews of ancient Greek culture. To professional classicists this is old news, but to the layman these unfamiliar aspects of Classical Greece are shocking. Unfamiliar as well, to the layman, are the centuries of earlier Greek life that laid the foundation for the famous “Golden Age” we study in school. For these reasons, I determined that when I travelled to Greece, I would visit all these different eras and rituals. I would pay tribute to the Parthenon — but also examine the “voodoo dolls” in the Kerameikos Museum in Athens. On the island of Euboea, north of Athens, an unusual site demonstrates that the Golden Age did not spring into existence fully formed but instead was centuries in the making. On a nondescript hillock overlooking the sea near the town of Lefkandi, a tenth - century B.C., a grave was revealed when ground was dug up for a house. The work unearthed the remains of an elaborate cremation and burial, uncannily similar to the burials of heroes described in Homer’s Iliad. In addition to the deceased’s bones, carefully wrapped in a piece of fabric and placed in an heirloom bronze urn, excavators found evidence of a building nearly 160 feet in length that had once covered the burial site. Dating from the era traditionally known as Greece’s Dark Age — some three and a half centuries that began with the collapse of the Mycenaean world — the Lefkandi finds were a reminder that however murky or “dark” this historical period may be to us, to the people of the time it was life. The Dark Age was an age of many things: oral bards continued the tradition of transmitting the Homeric masterpieces, the Iliad and Odyssey; distinctive pottery with geometric patterns was made throughout Greece; and as the Lefkandi site indicated, people built impressive structures to bury their dead in a manner befitting heroes. Like the carefully preserved bronze urn, two centuries older than the bones it contained, ideas — and culture — were passed on from generation to generation of the Greek people.

The author provides information that would answer which of the following questions?

(i) What have test-tube experiments revealed about the role of DNA?
(ii) What viruses interfere with DNA replication?
(iii) What methods have been developed to allow scientists to observe a living cell?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

Nearly twenty years ago, biochemists found that a separable constituent of deoxyribonucleic acid (or DNA) appeared to guide the cell’s protein-synthesising machinery. The internal structure of DNA seemed to represent a set of coded instructions which dictated the pattern of protein - synthesis. Experiments indicated that in the presence of appropriate enzymes each DNA molecule could form a replica, a new DNA molecule, containing the specific guiding message present in the original. This idea, when added to what was already known about the cellular mechanisms of heredity (especially the knowledge that DNA is localised in chromosomes), appeared to establish a molecular basis for inheritance.
Proponents of the theory that DNA was a “self duplicating” molecule, containing a code that by itself determined biological inheritance, introduced the term “central dogma” into scientific literature. They did so in order to describe the principles that could explain the DNA’s governing role. The dogma originally involved an admittedly unproven assumption that, whereas nucleic acids can guide the synthesis of other nucleic acids and of proteins, the reverse effect is impossible; that is, proteins cannot guide the synthesis of nucleic acids. But actual experimental observations deny the second and crucial part of this assumption. Other test-tube experiments show that agents besides DNA have a guiding influence. The kind of protein that is made may depend on the specific organism from which the necessary enzyme is obtained. It also depends on the test tube’s temperature, the degree of acidity, and the amount of metallic salts present. The central dogma banishes from consideration the interactions among the numerous molecular processes that have been discovered in cells or in their extracted fluids. In the living cell, molecular processes — the synthesis of nucleic acids and proteins or the oxidation of food substance — are not separate but interact in exceedingly complex ways. No matter how many ingredients the biochemists’ test tubes may contain, the mixtures are nonliving. However, these same ingredients, organised by the subtle structure of the cell, constitute a system which is alive. Consider an example from another field. At ordinary temperatures, electricity flows only so long as a driving force from a battery or generator is imposed upon the circuit. At temperatures near absolute zero, metals exhibit superconductivity: a unique property that causes an electric current to flow for months after the voltage is cut off.
Although independent electrons exist in a metal at ordinary temperatures, at very low temperatures they interact with the metal’s atomic structure in such a way as to lose their individual identities and form a coordinated, collective system which gives rise to superconductivity.
Such discoveries of modern physics show that the unique properties of a complex system are not necessarily explicable solely by the properties that can be observed in its isolated parts. We can expect to find a similar situation in the complex chemical system of the living cells.

Why was the wine at the author’s friends place served in a stone mug?

(a) Because the friend wanted to show that he could use extraordinary glasses to produce different tastes
(b) Because the friend wanted to show how rooted to the masses he was inspite of his contrasting upbringing
(c) Because the author and his friend belonged to the labour party and both deemed it fi t that, it was only just that one of the greatest wines of the century should be served at his table in earthenware

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

Do you recall the pleasure of discovering a new brand that actually delivers something that is perceptively superior to an existing one? It usually doesn’t involve an entirely new approach or radical departure from conventional wisdom — one feels the product in question is effortlessly superior to whatever the previous standard was. This happened to me when I purchased my first pair of Timberland boots in the late Seventies from a cubbyhole of a shop in High Street Kensington. They looked just like other boots but were amazing — robust, comfortable and durable — something I confirmed while I tramped along the Thai - Cambodia border attempting to assist refugees fleeing from the Khmer Rouge.
These days, Timberland has established itself as a clothing, beachwear, and accessories brand, turning out scores of designer boots, shoes, slip - ons and deck shoes. Nowadays they are fully up to speed about their carbon footprint and recently acquired a company with a range of accessories for skateboarders. It is still a good brand, but there is that niggling feeling that Timberland is merely a fashion statement rather than a mould - breaking take on the work boot for the leisured classes.
Like Timberland, Riedel, the pioneer wine glass makers, knocked me sideways when I first tasted Bordeaux from their specially designed glass. It was state - of - the - art and effective; if you ever doubted the curve of a wine glass could completely alter the wine’s taste, you only had to drink an identical wine from two differently designed wine glasses. I can assure you, a Bordeaux tasted from a Burgundy glass was completely different. Various grape varieties taste differently according to the glass used because they affect specific parts of the palate, so that if the wine is “thrown” towards a particular portion of the roof of the mouth, different taste sensations arise.
Riedel glassware turn out their traditional quality products that are more or less still at the summit for their type. However, they now feel impelled to diversify in the desire to “expand the brand”, perhaps aiming to cover all bases while consumers still have a jangle in their sparechange pocket. Or perhaps, having enjoyed enormous growth off the back of a single, simple and inspired idea in the 1950s, Riedel, like Timberland, is experiencing a midlife crisis of sorts.
To celebrate their fiftieth anniversary, Riedel have launched the “Sommeliers Black Tie Range”, ultraexpensive glasses from £50 to £80 a throw. Doubtless there will be a market for these glasses in the tuxedo - wearing classes. The stems are black so when you eye up a filled glass on your banqueting table, it appears that the Lafleur ‘47 (or is it Kangarouge NV?) goes all the way down to the base. To help those hard of seeing, the white wine version merely has a black base and a clear stem. And that’s not all  — Riedel now have something “to wow your guests” called NachtmannBossa Nova plates, which “show off your culinary  presentation skills”. Help! Get me out of here! All I ever wanted was a sturdy pair of boots and a perfect glass for my Bordeaux — not some sort of lifestyle nightmare. It might be time to consider the impact of appropriate glasses for various wines. We should start with Champagne as virtually no one except celebrants at Mongolian National day in Ulan Bator uses those old saucer-shaped ones (Champagne coupes, they’re called). Little - known fact: the shape was allegedly based on Marie - Antoinette’s breast. The slender flute is now the preferred Champagne shape, although I have yet to hear anyone claim it is based on any part of the anatomy of Louis XVI. The flute is superior because it manages to contain the bubbles of the Champagne — and provided you are drinking something not mass-produced by the lifestyle people, you can actually smell its nose.
Flying in the face of this advice, the most memorable Champagne I ever tasted was Cristal Rosé served in a plastic cup on a Eurostar as it pulled out of Paris. We had just spent the night at Chateau de Saran in Epernay drinking no end of different vintages of Dom Perignon, including their rare RosÃ. One of our party thought that while those wines were perfectly acceptable, they didn’t compare to the charms of Cristal RosÃ. I still have no idea how he managed to slip away from the queue at the Gare du Nord and return triumphant, clutching a handful of plastic cups. Even with the handicap of the drinking vessel, it managed to transcend anything we had drunk in the past day or two. I have no doubt it would have been even more ethereal in a flute. The same would apply to my first experience of Latour ‘59, served up in a stone mug on a stem. I drank it with a passionate socialist friend (later a Labour Government Minister) who believed that despite his privileged upbringing, it was only just that one of the greatest wines of the century should be served at his table in earthenware. I watched in horror as he expounded on some now obscure point of the class struggle between slurps from his mug. At the reverse end of the spectrum, I have drunk several bottles of Cheval Blanc ‘83 with a hedge fund owner who insists on serving this glorious wine in eighteenth century crystal, which for all I know could have been Marie - Antoinette’s. It still managed to strut its stuff — no easy task when the crystal is as thick as a bottle top. However, even he was dumbstruck when I arrived with a series of tasting glasses and thought it would be amusing to compare them. The quality leap was discernable but sadly I was not affluent enough to gift them to him, so it will be back to the ancient regime.
Riedel are not the only option when it comes to fine wine; at present I prefer drinking fine Bordeaux from very thin tasting glasses, half the dimensions of the classic Riedel variety. However, Riedel do deserve huge credit for introducing the concept of wine - specific glasses, ranging from Bordeaux and Burgundies to Chianti and red Rhônes.
I recently went to a dinner in honour of Georg Riedel in London, where he had vast displays of his glassware, including the dreaded Black Tie ones. It was tad gratuitous to put up a Riedel glass of Grand - Puy - Lacoste ‘01 against a plastic cup with the same wine. No prizes for which tasted more interesting and revealed more of its character. Still, he is a craftsman and deserves honour. I only wish that the human race wasn’t genetically impelled to always expand and hunt for new markets. It is nothing very new, historically. When the Emperor Augustus died, his will instructed his successor not to expand the boundaries of the Empire, but before too many centuries the legions became restless and began appointing their own Emperors, such was their shame at not being allowed to conquer and pillage. I don’t have any fears about Riedel going down this fatal route if they stopped spreading themselves into the wider philistine world of the consumer. On the contrary, I won’t be too surprised when I hear of the Alcopops Riedel glass or the eco -   friendly slingback Timberland.

The author’s idea can be concluded best by which of the following options?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

Poor citizens have little clout with politicians. In some countries the citizenry has only a weak hold on politicians. Even if there is a well functioning electoral system, poor people may not be able to influence politicians about public services. They may not be well informed about the quality of public services (and politicians know this); they may vote along ethnic or caste lines, placing less weight on public services when evaluating politicians; or they may not believe the candidates who promise better public services – for example, because their term in office is too short to deliver on the promise.