Reading Comprehension

What do you understand by the word “totalitarian” in reference to the passage?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

According to the history of Islam, around the year 610 A.D., in a cave in the Arabian city of Mecca, a young orphan named Muhammad heard a voice ordering him to recite revelations that would be dictated to him. Over a period of 22 years, Muhammad acted as a “transmitter” for the words of God, or “Allah,” which were recorded in writing and are collectively known as the Qur’an. Islam is based on the belief that the Qur’an is the direct word of God. Muslims, people who follow the Islamic faith, must observe the “five pillars” of Islam: the profession of faith in God and in the prophet Muhammad, prayer conducted five times a day, giving alms to the poor, fasting during the holy month of Ramadan, and undertaking the hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca. In addition, the Shari‘ah, Islam’s legal-ethical system, provides Muslims with a blueprint for human conduct regarding matters such as family life and money.
The second-largest religion in existence (behind Christianity) and the dominant religion in more than twenty countries, Islam is believed to be practiced by over one fifth of the world’s population. As Islam’s influence continues to grow throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and in the West—where some say it is the fastest-growing religion— scholars of diverse nations and faiths have offered their perspectives about the impact of this development. One of the most controversial opinions has come from American professor Samuel P. Huntington, author of the 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. Huntington proposes that Islam and the West are embroiled in a “clash of civilizations” in which “dedicated Islamic militants exploit the open societies of the West and plant car bombs at selected targets [and] Western military professionals exploit the open skies of Islam and drop smart bombs at selected targets.” In Huntington’s view, this conflict between Islam and the West promises to end in violence.
Those who agree with Huntington maintain that the values of Islam and the West are inherently incompatible. For example, unlike Western societies, which tend toward secular governments, many societies in which Muslims are the majority support the integration of religion and government— a philosophy that is often referred to as “political Islam.” Some Westerners regard political Islam as a dangerous movement whose goal is to gain power, dismantle other religions, and suppress human rights—as illustrated by Afghanistan, where self-proclaimed Islamic rulers have denied women basic rights such as access to health care; and Algeria and Sudan, where Christians have suffered persecution. Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, contends that political Islam is by nature undemocratic and power-seeking:
To build a new Muslim society, fundamentalists proclaim their intent to do whatever they must; they openly flaunt an extremist sensibility. . . . If that means destruction and death for the enemies of true Islam, so be it. . . . Seeing Islam as the basis of a political system touching every aspect of life, fundamentalists are totalitarian. Whatever the problem, “Islam is the solution.” . . . Fundamentalists are revolutionary in outlook, extremist in behavior, totalitarian in ambition. . . . Like communism and fascism, Islam offers a vanguard ideology; a complete program to improve man and create a new society; complete control over that society; and cadres, ready, even eager, to spill blood.
On the other side of the debate are Graham E. Fuller and Ian O. Lesser, authors of A Sense of Siege: the Geopolitics of Islam and the West, who challenge the notion that Islam is an “ideology.” They maintain that, just as the West reflects a vast diversity of beliefs and values, “Islam [cannot] be treated as a single, cohesive, coherent, comprehensive, monolithic entity.” Those who agree with Fuller and Lesser argue that ominous claims such as those offered by Huntington and Pipes only serve to reemphasize prevalent stereotypes of Muslims as religious “fanatics”—stereotypes that lead to incidents of anti-Arab violence in Western countries—and encourage non-Muslims to adopt an “us-versus-them” attitude toward Islam. In reality, asserts Muslim activist Amira Elazhary Sonbol, “Anyone looking for [old-fashioned] American values can find them in Islam. It stresses family unity, caring for your mother and father, as well as bringing up children in the faith.”
Still, both Muslims and non-Muslims agree that some radical groups operating in the name of Islam have instigated acts of terrorism against Western nations. Osama bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian millionaire and supporter of radical Islamic groups, is suspected to be the mastermind and financier behind countless acts of anti-Western terrorism, including the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. Oliver B. Revell, former senior FBI official in charge of counter-terrorist investigations, warns that Islamic militants “are ultimately committed to waging holy war, both in the Middle East and the world at large against all of their opposition. And that means us.”
However, claims Middle East scholar Antony T. Sullivan, many Westerners neglect to consider what drives Islamic terrorism in the first place. If some Muslims are hostile toward the West, he contends, that hostility “has much to do with Western policy before and during the Gulf War, as well as long-standing American policy toward Israel and Lebanon.” In fact, in the view of many Muslims—including Muslim-Americans—the United States pursues foreign policies that either neglect or antagonize followers of Islam. For example, U.S. attacks on Iraq, which were viewed by many Americans as necessary to counter dictator Saddam Hussein, were seen by Muslims as an attack on innocent Muslim civilians.
Differing perspectives about an event’s significance are common in the debate over how the religion of Islam is changing social and political systems throughout the world. In Islam: Opposing Viewpoints, an array of scholars, political analysts, and journalists offer contrasting views about Islam in the following chapters: Are the Values of Islam and the West in Conflict? What Is the Status of Women Under Islam? Does Islam Promote Terrorism? And What Policies Should the U.S. Take Toward Islam? The authors in this anthology examine conflicting perceptions of Islam’s values and con.

How is the importance of biodiversity concatenated by Peter Raven?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

The term “biodiversity”—short for biological diversity—was first used in the 1980s by scientists to refer to the richness of biological variation on Earth or within a particular region. In their book Saving Nature’s Legacy, ecologists Reed Noss and Allen Cooperrider define biodiversity as the variety of life and its processes. It includes the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, the…ecosystems in which they occur, and the ecological and evolutionary processes that keep them functioning, yet ever changing and adapting.
As this definition suggests, biodiversity exists on several levels. Perhaps the most common definition of the term refers to the variety of different species on the planet or in a given habitat. Approximately 1.7 million species of plants, animals, fungi, microbes, and other forms of life have been identified and named by biologists, but estimates of the total number of species on this planet vary greatly, from ten million to one hundred million. Scientists are engaged in several efforts around the world to identify and number undiscovered species, and many environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, focus on preventing their disappearance or extinction.
The concept of biodiversity also extends to different levels of biological organization. Genetic diversity refers to the genetic variation within the same species. This can cover distinct populations of the same species (rice, for instance, exists in thousands of distinct varieties) or genetic variation within the same population (cheetahs in Africa, for example, lack genetic diversity in that all members are very similar in their genetic makeup). Scientists also refer to ecosystem diversity, noting the presence on Earth of a wide variety of natural habitats that contain differing varieties of life and ways in which species interact with each other. The World Resources Institute states that “the breadth of the concept [of biodiversity] reflects the interrelatedness of genes, species, and ecosystems.”
Biodiversity at all levels is an important environmental resource. “Our lives depend on biodiversity in ways that are not often appreciated,” writes scientist Anthony C. Janetos. He and other observers have described several different ways in which humans rely on biodiversity. On a utilitarian level, humans depend on other species for food, clothing, wood, medicines, and other necessities and comforts of living. Domesticated strains of crop plants and animals are continually interbred with their wild “cousins” to introduce new genetic combinations that can improve yields, drought tolerance, and disease and pest resistance. Endangered species of plants or animals may have properties yet to be discovered that could provide important medicines. In addition to such direct benefits, the world’s diverse living creatures working in concert provide important ecological “services” such as air and water purification, climate regulation, erosion control, and providing oxygen in the atmosphere that humans need to breathe. “Biodiversity keeps the planet habitable,” concludes biologist Peter Raven. Some ecologists also stress the aesthetic value of a natural world rich with an abundance of varied and often beautiful life-forms.
These important benefits conferred by biodiversity may be at risk, some believe. “Biologists who explore biodiversity see it vanishing before their eyes,” writes Edward O. Wilson. Conservationists have classified eight thousand species as endangered, and the true number of species nearing extinction may be much higher. Scientists such as Denis Saunders of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) estimate that seventy-thousand species become extinct each year—almost two hundred species a day. Many argue that the world could possibly lose 50 percent of its species over the next century. These extinctions are primarily blamed on the pressures exerted by a human population that has grown from less than 1.75 billion in 1900 to more than 6 billion in 2000. Human activities such as hunting, fishing, logging, the conversion of natural habitat into farmland and urban areas, and the spread of non-native species into fragile ecological areas are all blamed for species extinction and declining biodiversity. “In both direct and indirect ways,” writes ecologist R. Edward Grumbine, “human activities are causing a biodiversity crisis—the largest mass extinction in 65 million years.”
Despite widespread agreement within the scientific community on the importance of biodiversity, some areas of contention remain. One concerns the extent of the extinction crisis. Extinction, most biologists agree, is a natural phenomenon that has occurred throughout world history; the question is whether contemporary extinction rates are abnormally high. Some scientists have argued that dramatic estimates in the thousands of species becoming extinct every year are speculative guesses without supporting data and that the number of documented extinctions remains relatively small. “The world is not losing species very rapidly yet,” argues science writer Dennis T. Avery. Moreover, Avery and others contend that most known extinctions have taken place on islands, which have small populations that are highly vulnerable to extinction and therefore do not necessarily demonstrate the existence of a biodiversity crisis elsewhere.
Disagreement also exists regarding the ramifications of species loss. People who may be concerned about the fate of the panda or blue whale may feel less sense of loss if an undiscovered species of beetle in the tropical rainforest becomes extinct—a far more likely scenario. In many cases, another species may simply replace the ecological niche or function of a species that became extinct. “Losing a species may be tragic,” writes author Mark L. Plummer, “but the result is rarely, if ever, catastrophic.” Conservationists retort that the cumulative ramifications of loss of biodiversity may very well damage the resiliency of ecosystems.
A third area of controversy revolves around proposed remedies for preventing loss of biodiversity. Since human activities are believed to be the main threat to biodiversity, most proposed solutions—such as setting aside land as wildlife habitat, banning hunting of animals, restricting logging—inevitably result in restrictions on human activities and create economic burdens. Many conservationists believe that these are costs that humanity must shoulder. But some observers argue that due to the scientific uncertainty as to the extent and ramifications of loss of biodiversity, broad conservation measures attempting to restrict human activities might not be warranted or should at least be weighed against other social goals. “Species are menaced to improve roads to hospitals, build university campuses, create affordable housing, make the raw material for newspapers and magazines, and create a host of other social goods,” argues Plummer. “When we alter or cancel these projects to benefit nature, we make life harder for human beings.”
Humanity faces some critical choices about whether and how to preserve global biodiversity. Many scientists believe the twenty-first century will be a crucial time in determining the fate of many of this planet’s species and those actions people take now will have a significant and lasting legacy. The various contributors to Biodiversity: Current Controversies discuss the causes, repercussions, and solutions to declining biodiversity. It is hoped that the articles that follow will shed light on one of the truly global issues of our time.

'Some people have challenged the notion that Islam is an ideology'. Which of the following in relevance to this sentence is untrue?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

According to the history of Islam, around the year 610 A.D., in a cave in the Arabian city of Mecca, a young orphan named Muhammad heard a voice ordering him to recite revelations that would be dictated to him. Over a period of 22 years, Muhammad acted as a “transmitter” for the words of God, or “Allah,” which were recorded in writing and are collectively known as the Qur’an. Islam is based on the belief that the Qur’an is the direct word of God. Muslims, people who follow the Islamic faith, must observe the “five pillars” of Islam: the profession of faith in God and in the prophet Muhammad, prayer conducted five times a day, giving alms to the poor, fasting during the holy month of Ramadan, and undertaking the hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca. In addition, the Shari‘ah, Islam’s legal-ethical system, provides Muslims with a blueprint for human conduct regarding matters such as family life and money.
The second-largest religion in existence (behind Christianity) and the dominant religion in more than twenty countries, Islam is believed to be practiced by over one fifth of the world’s population. As Islam’s influence continues to grow throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and in the West—where some say it is the fastest-growing religion— scholars of diverse nations and faiths have offered their perspectives about the impact of this development. One of the most controversial opinions has come from American professor Samuel P. Huntington, author of the 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. Huntington proposes that Islam and the West are embroiled in a “clash of civilizations” in which “dedicated Islamic militants exploit the open societies of the West and plant car bombs at selected targets [and] Western military professionals exploit the open skies of Islam and drop smart bombs at selected targets.” In Huntington’s view, this conflict between Islam and the West promises to end in violence.
Those who agree with Huntington maintain that the values of Islam and the West are inherently incompatible. For example, unlike Western societies, which tend toward secular governments, many societies in which Muslims are the majority support the integration of religion and government— a philosophy that is often referred to as “political Islam.” Some Westerners regard political Islam as a dangerous movement whose goal is to gain power, dismantle other religions, and suppress human rights—as illustrated by Afghanistan, where self-proclaimed Islamic rulers have denied women basic rights such as access to health care; and Algeria and Sudan, where Christians have suffered persecution. Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, contends that political Islam is by nature undemocratic and power-seeking:
To build a new Muslim society, fundamentalists proclaim their intent to do whatever they must; they openly flaunt an extremist sensibility. . . . If that means destruction and death for the enemies of true Islam, so be it. . . . Seeing Islam as the basis of a political system touching every aspect of life, fundamentalists are totalitarian. Whatever the problem, “Islam is the solution.” . . . Fundamentalists are revolutionary in outlook, extremist in behavior, totalitarian in ambition. . . . Like communism and fascism, Islam offers a vanguard ideology; a complete program to improve man and create a new society; complete control over that society; and cadres, ready, even eager, to spill blood.
On the other side of the debate are Graham E. Fuller and Ian O. Lesser, authors of A Sense of Siege: the Geopolitics of Islam and the West, who challenge the notion that Islam is an “ideology.” They maintain that, just as the West reflects a vast diversity of beliefs and values, “Islam [cannot] be treated as a single, cohesive, coherent, comprehensive, monolithic entity.” Those who agree with Fuller and Lesser argue that ominous claims such as those offered by Huntington and Pipes only serve to reemphasize prevalent stereotypes of Muslims as religious “fanatics”—stereotypes that lead to incidents of anti-Arab violence in Western countries—and encourage non-Muslims to adopt an “us-versus-them” attitude toward Islam. In reality, asserts Muslim activist Amira Elazhary Sonbol, “Anyone looking for [old-fashioned] American values can find them in Islam. It stresses family unity, caring for your mother and father, as well as bringing up children in the faith.”
Still, both Muslims and non-Muslims agree that some radical groups operating in the name of Islam have instigated acts of terrorism against Western nations. Osama bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian millionaire and supporter of radical Islamic groups, is suspected to be the mastermind and financier behind countless acts of anti-Western terrorism, including the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. Oliver B. Revell, former senior FBI official in charge of counter-terrorist investigations, warns that Islamic militants “are ultimately committed to waging holy war, both in the Middle East and the world at large against all of their opposition. And that means us.”
However, claims Middle East scholar Antony T. Sullivan, many Westerners neglect to consider what drives Islamic terrorism in the first place. If some Muslims are hostile toward the West, he contends, that hostility “has much to do with Western policy before and during the Gulf War, as well as long-standing American policy toward Israel and Lebanon.” In fact, in the view of many Muslims—including Muslim-Americans—the United States pursues foreign policies that either neglect or antagonize followers of Islam. For example, U.S. attacks on Iraq, which were viewed by many Americans as necessary to counter dictator Saddam Hussein, were seen by Muslims as an attack on innocent Muslim civilians.
Differing perspectives about an event’s significance are common in the debate over how the religion of Islam is changing social and political systems throughout the world. In Islam: Opposing Viewpoints, an array of scholars, political analysts, and journalists offer contrasting views about Islam in the following chapters: Are the Values of Islam and the West in Conflict? What Is the Status of Women Under Islam? Does Islam Promote Terrorism? And What Policies Should the U.S. Take Toward Islam? The authors in this anthology examine conflicting perceptions of Islam’s values and con.

What is the meaning of 'utilitarian” according to the passage?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

The term “biodiversity”—short for biological diversity—was first used in the 1980s by scientists to refer to the richness of biological variation on Earth or within a particular region. In their book Saving Nature’s Legacy, ecologists Reed Noss and Allen Cooperrider define biodiversity as the variety of life and its processes. It includes the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, the…ecosystems in which they occur, and the ecological and evolutionary processes that keep them functioning, yet ever changing and adapting.
As this definition suggests, biodiversity exists on several levels. Perhaps the most common definition of the term refers to the variety of different species on the planet or in a given habitat. Approximately 1.7 million species of plants, animals, fungi, microbes, and other forms of life have been identified and named by biologists, but estimates of the total number of species on this planet vary greatly, from ten million to one hundred million. Scientists are engaged in several efforts around the world to identify and number undiscovered species, and many environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, focus on preventing their disappearance or extinction.
The concept of biodiversity also extends to different levels of biological organization. Genetic diversity refers to the genetic variation within the same species. This can cover distinct populations of the same species (rice, for instance, exists in thousands of distinct varieties) or genetic variation within the same population (cheetahs in Africa, for example, lack genetic diversity in that all members are very similar in their genetic makeup). Scientists also refer to ecosystem diversity, noting the presence on Earth of a wide variety of natural habitats that contain differing varieties of life and ways in which species interact with each other. The World Resources Institute states that “the breadth of the concept [of biodiversity] reflects the interrelatedness of genes, species, and ecosystems.”
Biodiversity at all levels is an important environmental resource. “Our lives depend on biodiversity in ways that are not often appreciated,” writes scientist Anthony C. Janetos. He and other observers have described several different ways in which humans rely on biodiversity. On a utilitarian level, humans depend on other species for food, clothing, wood, medicines, and other necessities and comforts of living. Domesticated strains of crop plants and animals are continually interbred with their wild “cousins” to introduce new genetic combinations that can improve yields, drought tolerance, and disease and pest resistance. Endangered species of plants or animals may have properties yet to be discovered that could provide important medicines. In addition to such direct benefits, the world’s diverse living creatures working in concert provide important ecological “services” such as air and water purification, climate regulation, erosion control, and providing oxygen in the atmosphere that humans need to breathe. “Biodiversity keeps the planet habitable,” concludes biologist Peter Raven. Some ecologists also stress the aesthetic value of a natural world rich with an abundance of varied and often beautiful life-forms.
These important benefits conferred by biodiversity may be at risk, some believe. “Biologists who explore biodiversity see it vanishing before their eyes,” writes Edward O. Wilson. Conservationists have classified eight thousand species as endangered, and the true number of species nearing extinction may be much higher. Scientists such as Denis Saunders of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) estimate that seventy-thousand species become extinct each year—almost two hundred species a day. Many argue that the world could possibly lose 50 percent of its species over the next century. These extinctions are primarily blamed on the pressures exerted by a human population that has grown from less than 1.75 billion in 1900 to more than 6 billion in 2000. Human activities such as hunting, fishing, logging, the conversion of natural habitat into farmland and urban areas, and the spread of non-native species into fragile ecological areas are all blamed for species extinction and declining biodiversity. “In both direct and indirect ways,” writes ecologist R. Edward Grumbine, “human activities are causing a biodiversity crisis—the largest mass extinction in 65 million years.”
Despite widespread agreement within the scientific community on the importance of biodiversity, some areas of contention remain. One concerns the extent of the extinction crisis. Extinction, most biologists agree, is a natural phenomenon that has occurred throughout world history; the question is whether contemporary extinction rates are abnormally high. Some scientists have argued that dramatic estimates in the thousands of species becoming extinct every year are speculative guesses without supporting data and that the number of documented extinctions remains relatively small. “The world is not losing species very rapidly yet,” argues science writer Dennis T. Avery. Moreover, Avery and others contend that most known extinctions have taken place on islands, which have small populations that are highly vulnerable to extinction and therefore do not necessarily demonstrate the existence of a biodiversity crisis elsewhere.
Disagreement also exists regarding the ramifications of species loss. People who may be concerned about the fate of the panda or blue whale may feel less sense of loss if an undiscovered species of beetle in the tropical rainforest becomes extinct—a far more likely scenario. In many cases, another species may simply replace the ecological niche or function of a species that became extinct. “Losing a species may be tragic,” writes author Mark L. Plummer, “but the result is rarely, if ever, catastrophic.” Conservationists retort that the cumulative ramifications of loss of biodiversity may very well damage the resiliency of ecosystems.
A third area of controversy revolves around proposed remedies for preventing loss of biodiversity. Since human activities are believed to be the main threat to biodiversity, most proposed solutions—such as setting aside land as wildlife habitat, banning hunting of animals, restricting logging—inevitably result in restrictions on human activities and create economic burdens. Many conservationists believe that these are costs that humanity must shoulder. But some observers argue that due to the scientific uncertainty as to the extent and ramifications of loss of biodiversity, broad conservation measures attempting to restrict human activities might not be warranted or should at least be weighed against other social goals. “Species are menaced to improve roads to hospitals, build university campuses, create affordable housing, make the raw material for newspapers and magazines, and create a host of other social goods,” argues Plummer. “When we alter or cancel these projects to benefit nature, we make life harder for human beings.”
Humanity faces some critical choices about whether and how to preserve global biodiversity. Many scientists believe the twenty-first century will be a crucial time in determining the fate of many of this planet’s species and those actions people take now will have a significant and lasting legacy. The various contributors to Biodiversity: Current Controversies discuss the causes, repercussions, and solutions to declining biodiversity. It is hoped that the articles that follow will shed light on one of the truly global issues of our time.

The third model has all of the following characteristics except:

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

There is a strong correlation between learning disabilities (LDs) and both DSM-IV Axis 1 psychiatric disorders and other measures of psychological distress such as lowered self-esteem and lack of social competence (Beitchman and Young, 1997; American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1998). This is true whether one begins by studying a group of learning-disabled children (Maughan et al., 1996; Boetsch et al., 1997; Fergussen and Lynskey, 1997) or by studying a group identified as psychiatrically disturbed (Munir and Boulefard, 1995; Cohen, 1996). If the starting point of a study was children identified by the educational system as having emotional disturbance (ED), between 30% and 75% were additionally identified as having LDs (Fessier, Rosenberg, and Rosenberg, 1991; Duchnowski et al., 1993; Forness and Kavale, 1997). The most commonly associated psychiatric problem is an externalizing disorder-usually attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or a conduct disorder (CD), or both-although internalizing disorders (anxiety, depression) are also found. The type of psychiatric disorder (externalizing or internalizing) may be of importance in predicting which students will successfully complete treatment. CD worsens the prognosis, and internalizing disorders improve it (Mattison, Spitznagel, and Felix, 1998). Internalizing disorders in the young child may become externalizing disorders in adolescence. Externalizing disorders, especially CD, may progress to antisocial personality disorder in late adolescence or early adulthood. In all cases, psychotherapy can be difficult to institute or to manage successfully, because the youngsters tend to be defensive and fearful of criticism.
The Foundation Schools are programs in the greater Washington, D.C., area that provide therapeutic and educational help to students referred by the local public schools. These are students with emotional disorders severe enough to prevent them from benefiting from regular school. The youngsters referred to Foundation Schools' special education programs often have multiple and varying DSM-IV diagnoses. This was true in the case of the youngsters (Lakeisha and Arthur) in the first two case studies in this chapter. It should also be noted that both Lakeisha and Arthur had been given both internalizing and externalizing diagnoses at various points in their past.
Because reading disorders are the most-studied combined LD group, a brief review of the research in this area is useful. The relationships between reading disorders and behavior disorders is complicated and not completely worked out yet (Hinshaw, 1992; Moffitt, 1993; Beitchman, Brownlie, and Wilson, 1996; Maughan et al., 1996; Fergussen and Lynskey, 1997; Prior et al., 1999). Rutter (cited in Maughan and Yule, 1994) proposed three broad hypotheses to account for the reading-behavior problem links. First, the behavior problem may be primary and lead to reading problems by interfering with the child's learning. Second, the reading problem may be primary and lead to the behavior problem, perhaps through academic failure, frustration, and lowered self-esteem. Third, both difficulties may stem from a common root in genetic, temperamental, or environmental adversities. These models may interact in reciprocal and unidirectional ways, leading to the final result. Research has not settled which model is most accurate. Fergussen and Lynskey (1997) found that children with reading disabilities had early-onset conduct problems prior to the onset of reading problems. This supports the first model. The connection of reading disorder with ADHD (Lambert and Sandoval, 1980) and the observation that youngsters with ADHD show subpar preschool achievement tests (Mariani and Barkley, 1995) also tend to support the first model. Shaywitz (1996) has reported language delays and inattention to the sounds of words (trouble playing rhyming games with words or confusing words that sound alike) in preschool children at risk of dyslexia-second model. Hinshaw (1992) reported that the overlap of externalizing problems with cognitive and academic readiness deficits early in development suggest the influence of antecedent variables. Low socioeconomic status, family adversity, subaverage IQ, language deficits, and neurodevelopmental delays were explored as possible underlying factors-third model. Moffitt (1993) describes a neuropsychological model in which attention deficits, verbal deficits, and executive dysfunction interact with environmental responses to produce CD.

What according to the passage is the most commonly associated Psychiatric problem?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

There is a strong correlation between learning disabilities (LDs) and both DSM-IV Axis 1 psychiatric disorders and other measures of psychological distress such as lowered self-esteem and lack of social competence (Beitchman and Young, 1997; American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1998). This is true whether one begins by studying a group of learning-disabled children (Maughan et al., 1996; Boetsch et al., 1997; Fergussen and Lynskey, 1997) or by studying a group identified as psychiatrically disturbed (Munir and Boulefard, 1995; Cohen, 1996). If the starting point of a study was children identified by the educational system as having emotional disturbance (ED), between 30% and 75% were additionally identified as having LDs (Fessier, Rosenberg, and Rosenberg, 1991; Duchnowski et al., 1993; Forness and Kavale, 1997). The most commonly associated psychiatric problem is an externalizing disorder-usually attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or a conduct disorder (CD), or both-although internalizing disorders (anxiety, depression) are also found. The type of psychiatric disorder (externalizing or internalizing) may be of importance in predicting which students will successfully complete treatment. CD worsens the prognosis, and internalizing disorders improve it (Mattison, Spitznagel, and Felix, 1998). Internalizing disorders in the young child may become externalizing disorders in adolescence. Externalizing disorders, especially CD, may progress to antisocial personality disorder in late adolescence or early adulthood. In all cases, psychotherapy can be difficult to institute or to manage successfully, because the youngsters tend to be defensive and fearful of criticism.
The Foundation Schools are programs in the greater Washington, D.C., area that provide therapeutic and educational help to students referred by the local public schools. These are students with emotional disorders severe enough to prevent them from benefiting from regular school. The youngsters referred to Foundation Schools' special education programs often have multiple and varying DSM-IV diagnoses. This was true in the case of the youngsters (Lakeisha and Arthur) in the first two case studies in this chapter. It should also be noted that both Lakeisha and Arthur had been given both internalizing and externalizing diagnoses at various points in their past.
Because reading disorders are the most-studied combined LD group, a brief review of the research in this area is useful. The relationships between reading disorders and behavior disorders is complicated and not completely worked out yet (Hinshaw, 1992; Moffitt, 1993; Beitchman, Brownlie, and Wilson, 1996; Maughan et al., 1996; Fergussen and Lynskey, 1997; Prior et al., 1999). Rutter (cited in Maughan and Yule, 1994) proposed three broad hypotheses to account for the reading-behavior problem links. First, the behavior problem may be primary and lead to reading problems by interfering with the child's learning. Second, the reading problem may be primary and lead to the behavior problem, perhaps through academic failure, frustration, and lowered self-esteem. Third, both difficulties may stem from a common root in genetic, temperamental, or environmental adversities. These models may interact in reciprocal and unidirectional ways, leading to the final result. Research has not settled which model is most accurate. Fergussen and Lynskey (1997) found that children with reading disabilities had early-onset conduct problems prior to the onset of reading problems. This supports the first model. The connection of reading disorder with ADHD (Lambert and Sandoval, 1980) and the observation that youngsters with ADHD show subpar preschool achievement tests (Mariani and Barkley, 1995) also tend to support the first model. Shaywitz (1996) has reported language delays and inattention to the sounds of words (trouble playing rhyming games with words or confusing words that sound alike) in preschool children at risk of dyslexia-second model. Hinshaw (1992) reported that the overlap of externalizing problems with cognitive and academic readiness deficits early in development suggest the influence of antecedent variables. Low socioeconomic status, family adversity, subaverage IQ, language deficits, and neurodevelopmental delays were explored as possible underlying factors-third model. Moffitt (1993) describes a neuropsychological model in which attention deficits, verbal deficits, and executive dysfunction interact with environmental responses to produce CD.

`The first paragraph gives the definition of Biodiversity. What can be inferred from the definition?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

The term “biodiversity”—short for biological diversity—was first used in the 1980s by scientists to refer to the richness of biological variation on Earth or within a particular region. In their book Saving Nature’s Legacy, ecologists Reed Noss and Allen Cooperrider define biodiversity as the variety of life and its processes. It includes the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, the…ecosystems in which they occur, and the ecological and evolutionary processes that keep them functioning, yet ever changing and adapting.
As this definition suggests, biodiversity exists on several levels. Perhaps the most common definition of the term refers to the variety of different species on the planet or in a given habitat. Approximately 1.7 million species of plants, animals, fungi, microbes, and other forms of life have been identified and named by biologists, but estimates of the total number of species on this planet vary greatly, from ten million to one hundred million. Scientists are engaged in several efforts around the world to identify and number undiscovered species, and many environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, focus on preventing their disappearance or extinction.
The concept of biodiversity also extends to different levels of biological organization. Genetic diversity refers to the genetic variation within the same species. This can cover distinct populations of the same species (rice, for instance, exists in thousands of distinct varieties) or genetic variation within the same population (cheetahs in Africa, for example, lack genetic diversity in that all members are very similar in their genetic makeup). Scientists also refer to ecosystem diversity, noting the presence on Earth of a wide variety of natural habitats that contain differing varieties of life and ways in which species interact with each other. The World Resources Institute states that “the breadth of the concept [of biodiversity] reflects the interrelatedness of genes, species, and ecosystems.”
Biodiversity at all levels is an important environmental resource. “Our lives depend on biodiversity in ways that are not often appreciated,” writes scientist Anthony C. Janetos. He and other observers have described several different ways in which humans rely on biodiversity. On a utilitarian level, humans depend on other species for food, clothing, wood, medicines, and other necessities and comforts of living. Domesticated strains of crop plants and animals are continually interbred with their wild “cousins” to introduce new genetic combinations that can improve yields, drought tolerance, and disease and pest resistance. Endangered species of plants or animals may have properties yet to be discovered that could provide important medicines. In addition to such direct benefits, the world’s diverse living creatures working in concert provide important ecological “services” such as air and water purification, climate regulation, erosion control, and providing oxygen in the atmosphere that humans need to breathe. “Biodiversity keeps the planet habitable,” concludes biologist Peter Raven. Some ecologists also stress the aesthetic value of a natural world rich with an abundance of varied and often beautiful life-forms.
These important benefits conferred by biodiversity may be at risk, some believe. “Biologists who explore biodiversity see it vanishing before their eyes,” writes Edward O. Wilson. Conservationists have classified eight thousand species as endangered, and the true number of species nearing extinction may be much higher. Scientists such as Denis Saunders of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) estimate that seventy-thousand species become extinct each year—almost two hundred species a day. Many argue that the world could possibly lose 50 percent of its species over the next century. These extinctions are primarily blamed on the pressures exerted by a human population that has grown from less than 1.75 billion in 1900 to more than 6 billion in 2000. Human activities such as hunting, fishing, logging, the conversion of natural habitat into farmland and urban areas, and the spread of non-native species into fragile ecological areas are all blamed for species extinction and declining biodiversity. “In both direct and indirect ways,” writes ecologist R. Edward Grumbine, “human activities are causing a biodiversity crisis—the largest mass extinction in 65 million years.”
Despite widespread agreement within the scientific community on the importance of biodiversity, some areas of contention remain. One concerns the extent of the extinction crisis. Extinction, most biologists agree, is a natural phenomenon that has occurred throughout world history; the question is whether contemporary extinction rates are abnormally high. Some scientists have argued that dramatic estimates in the thousands of species becoming extinct every year are speculative guesses without supporting data and that the number of documented extinctions remains relatively small. “The world is not losing species very rapidly yet,” argues science writer Dennis T. Avery. Moreover, Avery and others contend that most known extinctions have taken place on islands, which have small populations that are highly vulnerable to extinction and therefore do not necessarily demonstrate the existence of a biodiversity crisis elsewhere.
Disagreement also exists regarding the ramifications of species loss. People who may be concerned about the fate of the panda or blue whale may feel less sense of loss if an undiscovered species of beetle in the tropical rainforest becomes extinct—a far more likely scenario. In many cases, another species may simply replace the ecological niche or function of a species that became extinct. “Losing a species may be tragic,” writes author Mark L. Plummer, “but the result is rarely, if ever, catastrophic.” Conservationists retort that the cumulative ramifications of loss of biodiversity may very well damage the resiliency of ecosystems.
A third area of controversy revolves around proposed remedies for preventing loss of biodiversity. Since human activities are believed to be the main threat to biodiversity, most proposed solutions—such as setting aside land as wildlife habitat, banning hunting of animals, restricting logging—inevitably result in restrictions on human activities and create economic burdens. Many conservationists believe that these are costs that humanity must shoulder. But some observers argue that due to the scientific uncertainty as to the extent and ramifications of loss of biodiversity, broad conservation measures attempting to restrict human activities might not be warranted or should at least be weighed against other social goals. “Species are menaced to improve roads to hospitals, build university campuses, create affordable housing, make the raw material for newspapers and magazines, and create a host of other social goods,” argues Plummer. “When we alter or cancel these projects to benefit nature, we make life harder for human beings.”
Humanity faces some critical choices about whether and how to preserve global biodiversity. Many scientists believe the twenty-first century will be a crucial time in determining the fate of many of this planet’s species and those actions people take now will have a significant and lasting legacy. The various contributors to Biodiversity: Current Controversies discuss the causes, repercussions, and solutions to declining biodiversity. It is hoped that the articles that follow will shed light on one of the truly global issues of our time.

Which law focuses on saving animals from extinction?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

The term “biodiversity”—short for biological diversity—was first used in the 1980s by scientists to refer to the richness of biological variation on Earth or within a particular region. In their book Saving Nature’s Legacy, ecologists Reed Noss and Allen Cooperrider define biodiversity as the variety of life and its processes. It includes the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, the…ecosystems in which they occur, and the ecological and evolutionary processes that keep them functioning, yet ever changing and adapting.
As this definition suggests, biodiversity exists on several levels. Perhaps the most common definition of the term refers to the variety of different species on the planet or in a given habitat. Approximately 1.7 million species of plants, animals, fungi, microbes, and other forms of life have been identified and named by biologists, but estimates of the total number of species on this planet vary greatly, from ten million to one hundred million. Scientists are engaged in several efforts around the world to identify and number undiscovered species, and many environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, focus on preventing their disappearance or extinction.
The concept of biodiversity also extends to different levels of biological organization. Genetic diversity refers to the genetic variation within the same species. This can cover distinct populations of the same species (rice, for instance, exists in thousands of distinct varieties) or genetic variation within the same population (cheetahs in Africa, for example, lack genetic diversity in that all members are very similar in their genetic makeup). Scientists also refer to ecosystem diversity, noting the presence on Earth of a wide variety of natural habitats that contain differing varieties of life and ways in which species interact with each other. The World Resources Institute states that “the breadth of the concept [of biodiversity] reflects the interrelatedness of genes, species, and ecosystems.”
Biodiversity at all levels is an important environmental resource. “Our lives depend on biodiversity in ways that are not often appreciated,” writes scientist Anthony C. Janetos. He and other observers have described several different ways in which humans rely on biodiversity. On a utilitarian level, humans depend on other species for food, clothing, wood, medicines, and other necessities and comforts of living. Domesticated strains of crop plants and animals are continually interbred with their wild “cousins” to introduce new genetic combinations that can improve yields, drought tolerance, and disease and pest resistance. Endangered species of plants or animals may have properties yet to be discovered that could provide important medicines. In addition to such direct benefits, the world’s diverse living creatures working in concert provide important ecological “services” such as air and water purification, climate regulation, erosion control, and providing oxygen in the atmosphere that humans need to breathe. “Biodiversity keeps the planet habitable,” concludes biologist Peter Raven. Some ecologists also stress the aesthetic value of a natural world rich with an abundance of varied and often beautiful life-forms.
These important benefits conferred by biodiversity may be at risk, some believe. “Biologists who explore biodiversity see it vanishing before their eyes,” writes Edward O. Wilson. Conservationists have classified eight thousand species as endangered, and the true number of species nearing extinction may be much higher. Scientists such as Denis Saunders of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) estimate that seventy-thousand species become extinct each year—almost two hundred species a day. Many argue that the world could possibly lose 50 percent of its species over the next century. These extinctions are primarily blamed on the pressures exerted by a human population that has grown from less than 1.75 billion in 1900 to more than 6 billion in 2000. Human activities such as hunting, fishing, logging, the conversion of natural habitat into farmland and urban areas, and the spread of non-native species into fragile ecological areas are all blamed for species extinction and declining biodiversity. “In both direct and indirect ways,” writes ecologist R. Edward Grumbine, “human activities are causing a biodiversity crisis—the largest mass extinction in 65 million years.”
Despite widespread agreement within the scientific community on the importance of biodiversity, some areas of contention remain. One concerns the extent of the extinction crisis. Extinction, most biologists agree, is a natural phenomenon that has occurred throughout world history; the question is whether contemporary extinction rates are abnormally high. Some scientists have argued that dramatic estimates in the thousands of species becoming extinct every year are speculative guesses without supporting data and that the number of documented extinctions remains relatively small. “The world is not losing species very rapidly yet,” argues science writer Dennis T. Avery. Moreover, Avery and others contend that most known extinctions have taken place on islands, which have small populations that are highly vulnerable to extinction and therefore do not necessarily demonstrate the existence of a biodiversity crisis elsewhere.
Disagreement also exists regarding the ramifications of species loss. People who may be concerned about the fate of the panda or blue whale may feel less sense of loss if an undiscovered species of beetle in the tropical rainforest becomes extinct—a far more likely scenario. In many cases, another species may simply replace the ecological niche or function of a species that became extinct. “Losing a species may be tragic,” writes author Mark L. Plummer, “but the result is rarely, if ever, catastrophic.” Conservationists retort that the cumulative ramifications of loss of biodiversity may very well damage the resiliency of ecosystems.
A third area of controversy revolves around proposed remedies for preventing loss of biodiversity. Since human activities are believed to be the main threat to biodiversity, most proposed solutions—such as setting aside land as wildlife habitat, banning hunting of animals, restricting logging—inevitably result in restrictions on human activities and create economic burdens. Many conservationists believe that these are costs that humanity must shoulder. But some observers argue that due to the scientific uncertainty as to the extent and ramifications of loss of biodiversity, broad conservation measures attempting to restrict human activities might not be warranted or should at least be weighed against other social goals. “Species are menaced to improve roads to hospitals, build university campuses, create affordable housing, make the raw material for newspapers and magazines, and create a host of other social goods,” argues Plummer. “When we alter or cancel these projects to benefit nature, we make life harder for human beings.”
Humanity faces some critical choices about whether and how to preserve global biodiversity. Many scientists believe the twenty-first century will be a crucial time in determining the fate of many of this planet’s species and those actions people take now will have a significant and lasting legacy. The various contributors to Biodiversity: Current Controversies discuss the causes, repercussions, and solutions to declining biodiversity. It is hoped that the articles that follow will shed light on one of the truly global issues of our time.

What is the difference between Internal and External disorders?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

There is a strong correlation between learning disabilities (LDs) and both DSM-IV Axis 1 psychiatric disorders and other measures of psychological distress such as lowered self-esteem and lack of social competence (Beitchman and Young, 1997; American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1998). This is true whether one begins by studying a group of learning-disabled children (Maughan et al., 1996; Boetsch et al., 1997; Fergussen and Lynskey, 1997) or by studying a group identified as psychiatrically disturbed (Munir and Boulefard, 1995; Cohen, 1996). If the starting point of a study was children identified by the educational system as having emotional disturbance (ED), between 30% and 75% were additionally identified as having LDs (Fessier, Rosenberg, and Rosenberg, 1991; Duchnowski et al., 1993; Forness and Kavale, 1997). The most commonly associated psychiatric problem is an externalizing disorder-usually attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or a conduct disorder (CD), or both-although internalizing disorders (anxiety, depression) are also found. The type of psychiatric disorder (externalizing or internalizing) may be of importance in predicting which students will successfully complete treatment. CD worsens the prognosis, and internalizing disorders improve it (Mattison, Spitznagel, and Felix, 1998). Internalizing disorders in the young child may become externalizing disorders in adolescence. Externalizing disorders, especially CD, may progress to antisocial personality disorder in late adolescence or early adulthood. In all cases, psychotherapy can be difficult to institute or to manage successfully, because the youngsters tend to be defensive and fearful of criticism.
The Foundation Schools are programs in the greater Washington, D.C., area that provide therapeutic and educational help to students referred by the local public schools. These are students with emotional disorders severe enough to prevent them from benefiting from regular school. The youngsters referred to Foundation Schools' special education programs often have multiple and varying DSM-IV diagnoses. This was true in the case of the youngsters (Lakeisha and Arthur) in the first two case studies in this chapter. It should also be noted that both Lakeisha and Arthur had been given both internalizing and externalizing diagnoses at various points in their past.
Because reading disorders are the most-studied combined LD group, a brief review of the research in this area is useful. The relationships between reading disorders and behavior disorders is complicated and not completely worked out yet (Hinshaw, 1992; Moffitt, 1993; Beitchman, Brownlie, and Wilson, 1996; Maughan et al., 1996; Fergussen and Lynskey, 1997; Prior et al., 1999). Rutter (cited in Maughan and Yule, 1994) proposed three broad hypotheses to account for the reading-behavior problem links. First, the behavior problem may be primary and lead to reading problems by interfering with the child's learning. Second, the reading problem may be primary and lead to the behavior problem, perhaps through academic failure, frustration, and lowered self-esteem. Third, both difficulties may stem from a common root in genetic, temperamental, or environmental adversities. These models may interact in reciprocal and unidirectional ways, leading to the final result. Research has not settled which model is most accurate. Fergussen and Lynskey (1997) found that children with reading disabilities had early-onset conduct problems prior to the onset of reading problems. This supports the first model. The connection of reading disorder with ADHD (Lambert and Sandoval, 1980) and the observation that youngsters with ADHD show subpar preschool achievement tests (Mariani and Barkley, 1995) also tend to support the first model. Shaywitz (1996) has reported language delays and inattention to the sounds of words (trouble playing rhyming games with words or confusing words that sound alike) in preschool children at risk of dyslexia-second model. Hinshaw (1992) reported that the overlap of externalizing problems with cognitive and academic readiness deficits early in development suggest the influence of antecedent variables. Low socioeconomic status, family adversity, subaverage IQ, language deficits, and neurodevelopmental delays were explored as possible underlying factors-third model. Moffitt (1993) describes a neuropsychological model in which attention deficits, verbal deficits, and executive dysfunction interact with environmental responses to produce CD.

Which of the following is causing a crisis in biodiversity?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

The term “biodiversity”—short for biological diversity—was first used in the 1980s by scientists to refer to the richness of biological variation on Earth or within a particular region. In their book Saving Nature’s Legacy, ecologists Reed Noss and Allen Cooperrider define biodiversity as the variety of life and its processes. It includes the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, the…ecosystems in which they occur, and the ecological and evolutionary processes that keep them functioning, yet ever changing and adapting.
As this definition suggests, biodiversity exists on several levels. Perhaps the most common definition of the term refers to the variety of different species on the planet or in a given habitat. Approximately 1.7 million species of plants, animals, fungi, microbes, and other forms of life have been identified and named by biologists, but estimates of the total number of species on this planet vary greatly, from ten million to one hundred million. Scientists are engaged in several efforts around the world to identify and number undiscovered species, and many environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, focus on preventing their disappearance or extinction.
The concept of biodiversity also extends to different levels of biological organization. Genetic diversity refers to the genetic variation within the same species. This can cover distinct populations of the same species (rice, for instance, exists in thousands of distinct varieties) or genetic variation within the same population (cheetahs in Africa, for example, lack genetic diversity in that all members are very similar in their genetic makeup). Scientists also refer to ecosystem diversity, noting the presence on Earth of a wide variety of natural habitats that contain differing varieties of life and ways in which species interact with each other. The World Resources Institute states that “the breadth of the concept [of biodiversity] reflects the interrelatedness of genes, species, and ecosystems.”
Biodiversity at all levels is an important environmental resource. “Our lives depend on biodiversity in ways that are not often appreciated,” writes scientist Anthony C. Janetos. He and other observers have described several different ways in which humans rely on biodiversity. On a utilitarian level, humans depend on other species for food, clothing, wood, medicines, and other necessities and comforts of living. Domesticated strains of crop plants and animals are continually interbred with their wild “cousins” to introduce new genetic combinations that can improve yields, drought tolerance, and disease and pest resistance. Endangered species of plants or animals may have properties yet to be discovered that could provide important medicines. In addition to such direct benefits, the world’s diverse living creatures working in concert provide important ecological “services” such as air and water purification, climate regulation, erosion control, and providing oxygen in the atmosphere that humans need to breathe. “Biodiversity keeps the planet habitable,” concludes biologist Peter Raven. Some ecologists also stress the aesthetic value of a natural world rich with an abundance of varied and often beautiful life-forms.
These important benefits conferred by biodiversity may be at risk, some believe. “Biologists who explore biodiversity see it vanishing before their eyes,” writes Edward O. Wilson. Conservationists have classified eight thousand species as endangered, and the true number of species nearing extinction may be much higher. Scientists such as Denis Saunders of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) estimate that seventy-thousand species become extinct each year—almost two hundred species a day. Many argue that the world could possibly lose 50 percent of its species over the next century. These extinctions are primarily blamed on the pressures exerted by a human population that has grown from less than 1.75 billion in 1900 to more than 6 billion in 2000. Human activities such as hunting, fishing, logging, the conversion of natural habitat into farmland and urban areas, and the spread of non-native species into fragile ecological areas are all blamed for species extinction and declining biodiversity. “In both direct and indirect ways,” writes ecologist R. Edward Grumbine, “human activities are causing a biodiversity crisis—the largest mass extinction in 65 million years.”
Despite widespread agreement within the scientific community on the importance of biodiversity, some areas of contention remain. One concerns the extent of the extinction crisis. Extinction, most biologists agree, is a natural phenomenon that has occurred throughout world history; the question is whether contemporary extinction rates are abnormally high. Some scientists have argued that dramatic estimates in the thousands of species becoming extinct every year are speculative guesses without supporting data and that the number of documented extinctions remains relatively small. “The world is not losing species very rapidly yet,” argues science writer Dennis T. Avery. Moreover, Avery and others contend that most known extinctions have taken place on islands, which have small populations that are highly vulnerable to extinction and therefore do not necessarily demonstrate the existence of a biodiversity crisis elsewhere.
Disagreement also exists regarding the ramifications of species loss. People who may be concerned about the fate of the panda or blue whale may feel less sense of loss if an undiscovered species of beetle in the tropical rainforest becomes extinct—a far more likely scenario. In many cases, another species may simply replace the ecological niche or function of a species that became extinct. “Losing a species may be tragic,” writes author Mark L. Plummer, “but the result is rarely, if ever, catastrophic.” Conservationists retort that the cumulative ramifications of loss of biodiversity may very well damage the resiliency of ecosystems.
A third area of controversy revolves around proposed remedies for preventing loss of biodiversity. Since human activities are believed to be the main threat to biodiversity, most proposed solutions—such as setting aside land as wildlife habitat, banning hunting of animals, restricting logging—inevitably result in restrictions on human activities and create economic burdens. Many conservationists believe that these are costs that humanity must shoulder. But some observers argue that due to the scientific uncertainty as to the extent and ramifications of loss of biodiversity, broad conservation measures attempting to restrict human activities might not be warranted or should at least be weighed against other social goals. “Species are menaced to improve roads to hospitals, build university campuses, create affordable housing, make the raw material for newspapers and magazines, and create a host of other social goods,” argues Plummer. “When we alter or cancel these projects to benefit nature, we make life harder for human beings.”
Humanity faces some critical choices about whether and how to preserve global biodiversity. Many scientists believe the twenty-first century will be a crucial time in determining the fate of many of this planet’s species and those actions people take now will have a significant and lasting legacy. The various contributors to Biodiversity: Current Controversies discuss the causes, repercussions, and solutions to declining biodiversity. It is hoped that the articles that follow will shed light on one of the truly global issues of our time.

What is the meaning of fatigue?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the given questions.

The two men looked into each other’s eyes- the widower speechless with astonishment, the jeweler scenting a thief. The latter broke the silence.
“Will you leave this necklace here for twenty-four hours? I will give you a receipt''.
“Certainly,” answered Mr. Lantin, hastily. Then putting the ticket in his pocket, he left the store.
 He wandered aimlessly through the streets, his mind in a sate of dreadful confusion. He tried to reason, to understand. He could not afford to purchase such a costly ornament, certainly not. But, then, it must have been a present, a present, a present from whom? Why was it given her?
 He stopped and remained standing in the middle of the street. A horrible doubt entered his mind – she? Then all the other gems must have been presents, too. The earth seemed to tremble beneath him; the tree before him was falling. Throwing up his arms, he too, fell to the ground unconscious. He recovered his senses in a pharmacy into which the passers-by had taken him, and later, was taken home. When he arrived, he shut himself up in his room and wept until nightfall. Finally, overcome with fatigue, he threw himself on the bed, where he passed an uneasy, restless night.
The following morning he arose and prepared to go to the office. It was hard to work after such a shock. He sent a letter to his employer requesting to be excused. Then he remembered that he had to return to the jeweler’s. He did not like the idea; but he could not leave the necklace with that man. So, he dressed and went out.
It was a lovely day; a clear blue sky smiled on the busy city below, and men of leisure were strolling about with their hands in their pockets.
Observing them, MLantin said to himself: “The rich, indeed, are happy. With money, it is possible to forget even the deepest sorrow. One can go where one pleases, and in travel find that distraction which is the surest cure for grief. Oh, if I was only rich”
He began to feel hungry, but his pocket was empty. He again remembered the necklace. Eighteen thousand francs. Eighteen thousand francs. What a sum.
He soon arrived in the Rue de la Paix, opposite the jeweler’s. Eighteen Thousand francs. Twenty times, he resolved to go in, but shame kept him back. He was hungry, however, - very hungry, and had not one cent in his pocket. He decided quickly and ran across the street in order to not have time for reflection, and entered the store.
The proprietor immediately came forward, and politely offered him a chair; the clerks glanced at him knowingly.
 “I have made inquires, M.Lantin,” said the jeweler, “and if you are still resolved to dispose of the gems, I am ready to pay you the price I offered.”
 “Certainly, sir,” stammered Mr. Lantin.

What is the meaning of wandered?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the given questions.

The two men looked into each other’s eyes- the widower speechless with astonishment, the jeweler scenting a thief. The latter broke the silence.
“Will you leave this necklace here for twenty-four hours? I will give you a receipt''.
“Certainly,” answered Mr. Lantin, hastily. Then putting the ticket in his pocket, he left the store.
 He wandered aimlessly through the streets, his mind in a sate of dreadful confusion. He tried to reason, to understand. He could not afford to purchase such a costly ornament, certainly not. But, then, it must have been a present, a present, a present from whom? Why was it given her?
 He stopped and remained standing in the middle of the street. A horrible doubt entered his mind – she? Then all the other gems must have been presents, too. The earth seemed to tremble beneath him; the tree before him was falling. Throwing up his arms, he too, fell to the ground unconscious. He recovered his senses in a pharmacy into which the passers-by had taken him, and later, was taken home. When he arrived, he shut himself up in his room and wept until nightfall. Finally, overcome with fatigue, he threw himself on the bed, where he passed an uneasy, restless night.
The following morning he arose and prepared to go to the office. It was hard to work after such a shock. He sent a letter to his employer requesting to be excused. Then he remembered that he had to return to the jeweler’s. He did not like the idea; but he could not leave the necklace with that man. So, he dressed and went out.
It was a lovely day; a clear blue sky smiled on the busy city below, and men of leisure were strolling about with their hands in their pockets.
Observing them, MLantin said to himself: “The rich, indeed, are happy. With money, it is possible to forget even the deepest sorrow. One can go where one pleases, and in travel find that distraction which is the surest cure for grief. Oh, if I was only rich”
He began to feel hungry, but his pocket was empty. He again remembered the necklace. Eighteen thousand francs. Eighteen thousand francs. What a sum.
He soon arrived in the Rue de la Paix, opposite the jeweler’s. Eighteen Thousand francs. Twenty times, he resolved to go in, but shame kept him back. He was hungry, however, - very hungry, and had not one cent in his pocket. He decided quickly and ran across the street in order to not have time for reflection, and entered the store.
The proprietor immediately came forward, and politely offered him a chair; the clerks glanced at him knowingly.
 “I have made inquires, M.Lantin,” said the jeweler, “and if you are still resolved to dispose of the gems, I am ready to pay you the price I offered.”
 “Certainly, sir,” stammered Mr. Lantin.

What is the meaning of passers-by?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the given questions.

The two men looked into each other’s eyes- the widower speechless with astonishment, the jeweler scenting a thief. The latter broke the silence.
“Will you leave this necklace here for twenty-four hours? I will give you a receipt''.
“Certainly,” answered Mr. Lantin, hastily. Then putting the ticket in his pocket, he left the store.
 He wandered aimlessly through the streets, his mind in a sate of dreadful confusion. He tried to reason, to understand. He could not afford to purchase such a costly ornament, certainly not. But, then, it must have been a present, a present, a present from whom? Why was it given her?
 He stopped and remained standing in the middle of the street. A horrible doubt entered his mind – she? Then all the other gems must have been presents, too. The earth seemed to tremble beneath him; the tree before him was falling. Throwing up his arms, he too, fell to the ground unconscious. He recovered his senses in a pharmacy into which the passers-by had taken him, and later, was taken home. When he arrived, he shut himself up in his room and wept until nightfall. Finally, overcome with fatigue, he threw himself on the bed, where he passed an uneasy, restless night.
The following morning he arose and prepared to go to the office. It was hard to work after such a shock. He sent a letter to his employer requesting to be excused. Then he remembered that he had to return to the jeweler’s. He did not like the idea; but he could not leave the necklace with that man. So, he dressed and went out.
It was a lovely day; a clear blue sky smiled on the busy city below, and men of leisure were strolling about with their hands in their pockets.
Observing them, MLantin said to himself: “The rich, indeed, are happy. With money, it is possible to forget even the deepest sorrow. One can go where one pleases, and in travel find that distraction which is the surest cure for grief. Oh, if I was only rich”
He began to feel hungry, but his pocket was empty. He again remembered the necklace. Eighteen thousand francs. Eighteen thousand francs. What a sum.
He soon arrived in the Rue de la Paix, opposite the jeweler’s. Eighteen Thousand francs. Twenty times, he resolved to go in, but shame kept him back. He was hungry, however, - very hungry, and had not one cent in his pocket. He decided quickly and ran across the street in order to not have time for reflection, and entered the store.
The proprietor immediately came forward, and politely offered him a chair; the clerks glanced at him knowingly.
 “I have made inquires, M.Lantin,” said the jeweler, “and if you are still resolved to dispose of the gems, I am ready to pay you the price I offered.”
 “Certainly, sir,” stammered Mr. Lantin.

What is the meaning of dreadful?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the given questions.

The two men looked into each other’s eyes- the widower speechless with astonishment, the jeweler scenting a thief. The latter broke the silence.
“Will you leave this necklace here for twenty-four hours? I will give you a receipt''.
“Certainly,” answered Mr. Lantin, hastily. Then putting the ticket in his pocket, he left the store.
 He wandered aimlessly through the streets, his mind in a sate of dreadful confusion. He tried to reason, to understand. He could not afford to purchase such a costly ornament, certainly not. But, then, it must have been a present, a present, a present from whom? Why was it given her?
 He stopped and remained standing in the middle of the street. A horrible doubt entered his mind – she? Then all the other gems must have been presents, too. The earth seemed to tremble beneath him; the tree before him was falling. Throwing up his arms, he too, fell to the ground unconscious. He recovered his senses in a pharmacy into which the passers-by had taken him, and later, was taken home. When he arrived, he shut himself up in his room and wept until nightfall. Finally, overcome with fatigue, he threw himself on the bed, where he passed an uneasy, restless night.
The following morning he arose and prepared to go to the office. It was hard to work after such a shock. He sent a letter to his employer requesting to be excused. Then he remembered that he had to return to the jeweler’s. He did not like the idea; but he could not leave the necklace with that man. So, he dressed and went out.
It was a lovely day; a clear blue sky smiled on the busy city below, and men of leisure were strolling about with their hands in their pockets.
Observing them, MLantin said to himself: “The rich, indeed, are happy. With money, it is possible to forget even the deepest sorrow. One can go where one pleases, and in travel find that distraction which is the surest cure for grief. Oh, if I was only rich”
He began to feel hungry, but his pocket was empty. He again remembered the necklace. Eighteen thousand francs. Eighteen thousand francs. What a sum.
He soon arrived in the Rue de la Paix, opposite the jeweler’s. Eighteen Thousand francs. Twenty times, he resolved to go in, but shame kept him back. He was hungry, however, - very hungry, and had not one cent in his pocket. He decided quickly and ran across the street in order to not have time for reflection, and entered the store.
The proprietor immediately came forward, and politely offered him a chair; the clerks glanced at him knowingly.
 “I have made inquires, M.Lantin,” said the jeweler, “and if you are still resolved to dispose of the gems, I am ready to pay you the price I offered.”
 “Certainly, sir,” stammered Mr. Lantin.

What is the meaning of strolling?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the given questions.

The two men looked into each other’s eyes- the widower speechless with astonishment, the jeweler scenting a thief. The latter broke the silence.
“Will you leave this necklace here for twenty-four hours? I will give you a receipt''.
“Certainly,” answered Mr. Lantin, hastily. Then putting the ticket in his pocket, he left the store.
 He wandered aimlessly through the streets, his mind in a sate of dreadful confusion. He tried to reason, to understand. He could not afford to purchase such a costly ornament, certainly not. But, then, it must have been a present, a present, a present from whom? Why was it given her?
 He stopped and remained standing in the middle of the street. A horrible doubt entered his mind – she? Then all the other gems must have been presents, too. The earth seemed to tremble beneath him; the tree before him was falling. Throwing up his arms, he too, fell to the ground unconscious. He recovered his senses in a pharmacy into which the passers-by had taken him, and later, was taken home. When he arrived, he shut himself up in his room and wept until nightfall. Finally, overcome with fatigue, he threw himself on the bed, where he passed an uneasy, restless night.
The following morning he arose and prepared to go to the office. It was hard to work after such a shock. He sent a letter to his employer requesting to be excused. Then he remembered that he had to return to the jeweler’s. He did not like the idea; but he could not leave the necklace with that man. So, he dressed and went out.
It was a lovely day; a clear blue sky smiled on the busy city below, and men of leisure were strolling about with their hands in their pockets.
Observing them, MLantin said to himself: “The rich, indeed, are happy. With money, it is possible to forget even the deepest sorrow. One can go where one pleases, and in travel find that distraction which is the surest cure for grief. Oh, if I was only rich”
He began to feel hungry, but his pocket was empty. He again remembered the necklace. Eighteen thousand francs. Eighteen thousand francs. What a sum.
He soon arrived in the Rue de la Paix, opposite the jeweler’s. Eighteen Thousand francs. Twenty times, he resolved to go in, but shame kept him back. He was hungry, however, - very hungry, and had not one cent in his pocket. He decided quickly and ran across the street in order to not have time for reflection, and entered the store.
The proprietor immediately came forward, and politely offered him a chair; the clerks glanced at him knowingly.
 “I have made inquires, M.Lantin,” said the jeweler, “and if you are still resolved to dispose of the gems, I am ready to pay you the price I offered.”
 “Certainly, sir,” stammered Mr. Lantin.