testing pte

Which of the following statements is true according to the text?

Read the text and answer the multiple-choice question by selecting the correct response. Only one response is correct.
These days you can fit hundreds of books into one e-book reader or smartphone, and this has led publishers, writers and readers alike to ask whether this means the death of the printed book and a drastic change in how we read. Or, as some hope and believe, will the electronic book format simply complement traditional book publishing?
The fact that a book can be downloaded from almost anywhere in the world has blurred the lines between author, reader, format and distribution, and this has caused some head-scratching at some of the world's biggest publishing companies. Such companies must adapt, and quickly, to the new market; but many are nervous of the risks and often shareholders are not willing to break new ground.
For many writers, however, e-publishing provides new freedoms and opportunities. Many e-books are published by writers who do not have a readership through mainstream publishers, and this allows -hem to deal with material that mainstream publishers would consider too controversial or otherwise unmarketable.
The market is very much driven by the consumer, and publishing companies are going to have to deal with this new situation sooner or later. It is quite a complicated situation, but it doesn't have to be either/or. The book as we know it has been around for about 500 years and, once things settle down, there is no reason why the e-book and the traditional printed book should not exist happily side by side.

According to the text, which of the following are true of English attitudes towards intellectuals?

Read the text and answer the question by selecting all the correct responses. More than one response is correct.
What do we mean by the term "intellectual", and what is a "public intellectual"? It is an odd fact of English culture that it is largely a term of abuse and, when asked to name one, we almost always turn to the continent, particularly France. A typical intellectual in France, we think, will hold down a job as a professor - preferably of philosophy - have a column in a mass circulation daily newspaper, be involved in politics and appear on the cover of Vogue.
Our aversion to intellectuals, or to the term, may go back to when we were at school where nobody likes a “swot”. In fact, almost any kind of braininess is disparaged: scientists are mad-haired "boffins", tech-savvy kids are "nerds", and people can be "too clever by half". Indeed, we would claim that we are naturally practical thinkers and too full of common sense to produce such highbrows - a situation not helped by many of the people who we consider to be intellectuals denying the fact.
One problem is that of definition: what qualifications are required and what sort of activities does someone have to engage in before they can be called an intellectual? One possible definition is that public intellectuals should be independent of those in power and critical of received ideas. Furthermore, he or she must be someone who raises embarrassing questions in public, contests dogma, and who cannot be persuaded to join governments or corporations.
Let's take a thinker from last century whose theories still have an impact today and see if the definition fits. John Maynard Keynes was an economist who worked for the Treasury and wrote influential books on monetary policy, an art collector, and a member of the Bloomsbury group of writers, artists and intellectuals. Perhaps we need to adjust our definition slightly!

What is the main reason for the writer mentioning Rowley?

Read the text and answer the multiple-choice question by selecting the correct response. Only one response is correct.
“Rightly is they called pigs,” said Rowley, a farm laborer looking at the wallowing animals before passing on to the cow sheds, in Aldous Huxley's novel Chrome Yellow. Those who heard his words commented on his wisdom.
This raises all sorts of questions about language and how we perceive the world, questions that range from the philosophical to the, politically correct (PC) use of language and the question of causing offence - for example, calling someone a pig.
Those who believed in being PC tried to adjust language to take into account people's sensitivities in the areas of race, sexuality and disability, and a theologian has recently written that we should do the same for the animal kingdom. To call them "wild" or "beasts" is, he says, "derogatory and offensive". I'm all in favor of animal welfare, but, in arguing his case, he says that language is the means by which we understand and conceptualize the world around us.
But is it? Isn't it the other way round? To put it another, very simple, way: do you believe that the language you use has made you think of the world in a certain way, or that you have an idea of the world as it is and your place in it, and you use language to understand and describe it?
Is Rowley's wisdom based on his many years working with farm animals, and what he has seen is just pigs being pigs and there's nothing more to be said? Or has he decided that the name "pig" suits these creatures because they behave piggishly? If we cleaned them up, taught them table manners and made them wear a tie, would we have to call them something else?