Reading Comprehension

Choose the word most similar in meaning to the word ‘colonised’ as used in the passage.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. Some words/phrases are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.

There is nothing like a tropical rain forest for replacing arrogance with awe. Who could enter these primordial places, these untamed Edens, and not be wonderstruck? Dark and mysterious even in daytime, rain forests inspire respect. They are one of Nature's last frontiers, alive with flora and fauna seen rarely or never by human beings, and colonized by a handful of indigenous tribes that have had little or no contact with the outside world. Vast, fecund and biologically diverse, rain forests are bountiful and seemingly inexhaustible ecosystems that have supplied the human race with a staggering treasure trove including timber, fruit, spices and medicines. Although much more bounty lies in wait, the pace of discovery in the rain forest is naturally slow. The sheer number of plants to study is staggering and scientific experimentation takes time and money. Even when a chemical needle is found in a rain forest haystack, it still takes years to get a new drug to market.

The English naturalist and author Gerald Durrell assailed those who would ravage the rain forests loggers, ranchers and miners, for acting "with the savage, unthinking ferocity of a troupe of drunken apes in art gallery". But, he added, "whereas pictures can be repainted, tropical rain forests can't be recreated". Indeed, what could replace the wondrous electric fish of the Amazon River, the poison-sweating frogs of Panama, or the host of plants and animals whose secrets and potential benefits have yet to be fathomed? In a word, nothing. When they are gone, they are.

The world's rain forests still hold a host of secrets, many of which are being slowly unravelled as new discoveries of plant and animal life are made. According to conservative estimates, about 30 million species of plants and animals - more than half of all life forms on Earth - live in the tropical rain forests. But some scientists suggest there could be up to 80 million or more species living in this mysterious and still largely unexplored realm. This higher figure could very well be proved right as researchers probe the forest canopy, the treetop network of leaves, vines and branches that forms a world within a world. In these huge green expanses scores of meters above the forest floor, sky gardens of orchids and philodendrons bloom without benefit of soil. Birds avoid the rain by hanging upside down beneath broad leaves. Green iguanas climb aloft to bask nearer the tropical sun. Sloths dangle motionless for hours, avoiding eagles and other predators. And everywhere is the buzz and flutter of insects, which inhabit the rain forest in incredible variety and numbers. While new species of larger creatures such as a dwarf deer identified in Vietnam's Vu Quag forest in April are rarely discovered, the insect world still offers plentiful newness, especially in the rain forest canopy.

This treetop world enchants Andrew Mitchell, an Oxford-based naturalist and author who is program director for Earth Watch, an organisation that matches volunteer members of the public with scientific and conservation projects worldwide. Mitchell has extensively explored the rain forests of Asia and Latin America, making perilous climbs into the canopy, which he describes as the "penthouse where the trees have their sex lives". The canopy is physically and biologically the most active part of any rain forest. With its complex system of interdependence among animals, plants and insects, it is also the least understood. "Half of all life lives there and it's where the reproductive biology of trees goes on", explains Mitchell. "If we're trying to save rain forests, we won't get anywhere unless we understand how these trees reproduce". As commercial development encroaches ever deeper into once-remote areas, saving the rain forests is becoming an increasingly urgent task. Some 6% of Earth's land area is rain forest, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature, and more than 1% of that - about 17 million hectares - is being lost each year through logging, mining and agriculture.

Choose the word most similar in meaning to the word ‘Fecund’ as used in the passage.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. Some words/phrases are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.

There is nothing like a tropical rain forest for replacing arrogance with awe. Who could enter these primordial places, these untamed Edens, and not be wonderstruck? Dark and mysterious even in daytime, rain forests inspire respect. They are one of Nature's last frontiers, alive with flora and fauna seen rarely or never by human beings, and colonized by a handful of indigenous tribes that have had little or no contact with the outside world. Vast, fecund and biologically diverse, rain forests are bountiful and seemingly inexhaustible ecosystems that have supplied the human race with a staggering treasure trove including timber, fruit, spices and medicines. Although much more bounty lies in wait, the pace of discovery in the rain forest is naturally slow. The sheer number of plants to study is staggering and scientific experimentation takes time and money. Even when a chemical needle is found in a rain forest haystack, it still takes years to get a new drug to market.

The English naturalist and author Gerald Durrell assailed those who would ravage the rain forests loggers, ranchers and miners, for acting "with the savage, unthinking ferocity of a troupe of drunken apes in art gallery". But, he added, "whereas pictures can be repainted, tropical rain forests can't be recreated". Indeed, what could replace the wondrous electric fish of the Amazon River, the poison-sweating frogs of Panama, or the host of plants and animals whose secrets and potential benefits have yet to be fathomed? In a word, nothing. When they are gone, they are.

The world's rain forests still hold a host of secrets, many of which are being slowly unravelled as new discoveries of plant and animal life are made. According to conservative estimates, about 30 million species of plants and animals - more than half of all life forms on Earth - live in the tropical rain forests. But some scientists suggest there could be up to 80 million or more species living in this mysterious and still largely unexplored realm. This higher figure could very well be proved right as researchers probe the forest canopy, the treetop network of leaves, vines and branches that forms a world within a world. In these huge green expanses scores of meters above the forest floor, sky gardens of orchids and philodendrons bloom without benefit of soil. Birds avoid the rain by hanging upside down beneath broad leaves. Green iguanas climb aloft to bask nearer the tropical sun. Sloths dangle motionless for hours, avoiding eagles and other predators. And everywhere is the buzz and flutter of insects, which inhabit the rain forest in incredible variety and numbers. While new species of larger creatures such as a dwarf deer identified in Vietnam's Vu Quag forest in April are rarely discovered, the insect world still offers plentiful newness, especially in the rain forest canopy.

This treetop world enchants Andrew Mitchell, an Oxford-based naturalist and author who is program director for Earth Watch, an organisation that matches volunteer members of the public with scientific and conservation projects worldwide. Mitchell has extensively explored the rain forests of Asia and Latin America, making perilous climbs into the canopy, which he describes as the "penthouse where the trees have their sex lives". The canopy is physically and biologically the most active part of any rain forest. With its complex system of interdependence among animals, plants and insects, it is also the least understood. "Half of all life lives there and it's where the reproductive biology of trees goes on", explains Mitchell. "If we're trying to save rain forests, we won't get anywhere unless we understand how these trees reproduce". As commercial development encroaches ever deeper into once-remote areas, saving the rain forests is becoming an increasingly urgent task. Some 6% of Earth's land area is rain forest, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature, and more than 1% of that - about 17 million hectares - is being lost each year through logging, mining and agriculture.

Choose the word(s) most similar in meaning to the word ‘prying’ as used in the passage.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.

Genes are

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.

Choose the word most similar in meaning to the word ‘staggering’ as used in the passage.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. Some words/phrases are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.

There is nothing like a tropical rain forest for replacing arrogance with awe. Who could enter these primordial places, these untamed Edens, and not be wonderstruck? Dark and mysterious even in daytime, rain forests inspire respect. They are one of Nature's last frontiers, alive with flora and fauna seen rarely or never by human beings, and colonized by a handful of indigenous tribes that have had little or no contact with the outside world. Vast, fecund and biologically diverse, rain forests are bountiful and seemingly inexhaustible ecosystems that have supplied the human race with a staggering treasure trove including timber, fruit, spices and medicines. Although much more bounty lies in wait, the pace of discovery in the rain forest is naturally slow. The sheer number of plants to study is staggering and scientific experimentation takes time and money. Even when a chemical needle is found in a rain forest haystack, it still takes years to get a new drug to market.

The English naturalist and author Gerald Durrell assailed those who would ravage the rain forests loggers, ranchers and miners, for acting "with the savage, unthinking ferocity of a troupe of drunken apes in art gallery". But, he added, "whereas pictures can be repainted, tropical rain forests can't be recreated". Indeed, what could replace the wondrous electric fish of the Amazon River, the poison-sweating frogs of Panama, or the host of plants and animals whose secrets and potential benefits have yet to be fathomed? In a word, nothing. When they are gone, they are.

The world's rain forests still hold a host of secrets, many of which are being slowly unravelled as new discoveries of plant and animal life are made. According to conservative estimates, about 30 million species of plants and animals - more than half of all life forms on Earth - live in the tropical rain forests. But some scientists suggest there could be up to 80 million or more species living in this mysterious and still largely unexplored realm. This higher figure could very well be proved right as researchers probe the forest canopy, the treetop network of leaves, vines and branches that forms a world within a world. In these huge green expanses scores of meters above the forest floor, sky gardens of orchids and philodendrons bloom without benefit of soil. Birds avoid the rain by hanging upside down beneath broad leaves. Green iguanas climb aloft to bask nearer the tropical sun. Sloths dangle motionless for hours, avoiding eagles and other predators. And everywhere is the buzz and flutter of insects, which inhabit the rain forest in incredible variety and numbers. While new species of larger creatures such as a dwarf deer identified in Vietnam's Vu Quag forest in April are rarely discovered, the insect world still offers plentiful newness, especially in the rain forest canopy.

This treetop world enchants Andrew Mitchell, an Oxford-based naturalist and author who is program director for Earth Watch, an organisation that matches volunteer members of the public with scientific and conservation projects worldwide. Mitchell has extensively explored the rain forests of Asia and Latin America, making perilous climbs into the canopy, which he describes as the "penthouse where the trees have their sex lives". The canopy is physically and biologically the most active part of any rain forest. With its complex system of interdependence among animals, plants and insects, it is also the least understood. "Half of all life lives there and it's where the reproductive biology of trees goes on", explains Mitchell. "If we're trying to save rain forests, we won't get anywhere unless we understand how these trees reproduce". As commercial development encroaches ever deeper into once-remote areas, saving the rain forests is becoming an increasingly urgent task. Some 6% of Earth's land area is rain forest, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature, and more than 1% of that - about 17 million hectares - is being lost each year through logging, mining and agriculture.

Choose the word(s) most similar in meaning to the word ‘Banishing’ as used in the passage.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.

A suitable title for the passage

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.

Choose the word(s) most similar in meaning to the word ‘inherently’ as used in the passage.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. 

Genes too often get a bad press. This is not surprising since there are "bad" genes as well as "good" ones, and bad news grips readers more than good news. Bad genes are actually mutated good genes which because of altered DNA messages, do not function normally. One particularly bad gene leads to Huntington's disease, which progressively destroys key nerve cells. Most of an individual's genes, however, are inherently good. Collectively they are the instruction book for our bodies. Without the right instructions from our genes, we could not develop into functioning adults. And fortunately, many bad genes - like that for cystic fibrosis - have no immediate consequence since they are expressed only when copies are inherited from both the father and mother. Carriers possessing only one copy of this gene are much more common (around one in 25) than individuals with the disease (around one in 2,300). Until recently, there was no way to isolate and characterise bad genes. They were known only by their consequences: disease. Today, however thanks to the development of powerful new ways for studying DNA, there is a flood of information about the faulty genes implicated in virtually every major human disease, including diabetes, cancer and asthma. Every week or so, a new disease gene is discovered.

But with almost routine ways now available to test DNA samples for the presence of specific mutant genes, there is increased anxiety that an individual's genetic heritage may be vulnerable to unwanted prying. The DNA from a single human hair for example may be sufficient to alert a prospective employer or health insurer to a person's genetic predisposition to disease. Broad privacy laws must therefore be enacted to forbid genetic tests without the informed consent of the individual involved. But even with such laws, dilemmas will arise when individuals do not realise the significance of the proposed genetic screening. These tests warn of impending disease, but do not cure. And how many people would want to have certain knowledge that they will contract a disease for which there is no cure?

Banishing genetic disability must therefore be our primary concern. We would not worry about testing for a predisposing gene for Alzheimer's disease if we already had the cure. In this case, knowing that an individual is seriously predisposed might allow drug therapy to begin before brain functioning is irreversibly diminished. The recent discovery of several genes whose malfunctioning leads to Alzheimer's provides the pharmaceutical industry with important molecular targets for drug development. Only through the discovery of these kinds of genes can biomedical research stop this most pernicious cause of human senility.

We must never, however, live under the misconception that we will ever effectively control the majority of genetic diseases. Many are likely to prove intractable to drug therapies or gene therapies in which good genes are introduced into cells to compensate for bad ones. It will be particularly difficult to compensate for genes that malfunction during foetal development. If key genes controlling the networking of brain cells don't come into action in the womb, no drug or gene therapy procedure will be able to correctly rewire the brain later. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether steps should be taken to prevent the birth of genetically impaired children. Many are opposed for religious reasons to trying to control the genetic destinies of children. Others, recalling Germany's eugenic practice whereby the crude racial and class prejudices of early eugenicists are replaced by scientific demonstrations of genetic inequality.

But the possibility of controlling our children's genetic destiny strikes me as only good. It is grossly unfair that some families’ lives are dominated by the horrors of genetic disease. As a biologist, I know that people suffering from genetic disease are the victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice. Mutation has been, and always will be, an essential fact of life, since it is through mistake in gene replication that the positive genetic variants arise which are the lifeblood of evolution. If the gene copying process were perfect, life as it now exists never would have come about. Genetic disease is the price we pay for the extraordinary evolutionary process that has given rise to the wonders of life on earth.

I thus do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. Here is, of course, nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled foetus. But doing so is comparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired. There is, of course, the question of who should have the authority to make decisions of this kind. Here the message of past eugenic practices is clear. Never let a government, no matter how apparently benign, into the process. The potential mother should have this authority. It is she who is likely to be most involved with the upbringing of the child.

I am aware that some will argue that the foetus has an inalienable right to life. But the process of evolution never regards any form of life, be it adult or foetal as an inalienable right. It's better to see humans as wonderful social animals having needs (for food, health and sex, for example), capabilities (for thought and love among others) and responsibilities (including that to work with other human beings to see that everyone's needs are adequately met). Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed.

Which organisation does scientific and conservation projects worldwide?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully to answer the given question. Some words/phrases are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.

There is nothing like a tropical rain forest for replacing arrogance with awe. Who could enter these primordial places, these untamed Edens, and not be wonderstruck? Dark and mysterious even in daytime, rain forests inspire respect. They are one of Nature's last frontiers, alive with flora and fauna seen rarely or never by human beings, and colonized by a handful of indigenous tribes that have had little or no contact with the outside world. Vast, fecund and biologically diverse, rain forests are bountiful and seemingly inexhaustible ecosystems that have supplied the human race with a staggering treasure trove including timber, fruit, spices and medicines. Although much more bounty lies in wait, the pace of discovery in the rain forest is naturally slow. The sheer number of plants to study is staggering and scientific experimentation takes time and money. Even when a chemical needle is found in a rain forest haystack, it still takes years to get a new drug to market.

The English naturalist and author Gerald Durrell assailed those who would ravage the rain forests loggers, ranchers and miners, for acting "with the savage, unthinking ferocity of a troupe of drunken apes in art gallery". But, he added, "whereas pictures can be repainted, tropical rain forests can't be recreated". Indeed, what could replace the wondrous electric fish of the Amazon River, the poison-sweating frogs of Panama, or the host of plants and animals whose secrets and potential benefits have yet to be fathomed? In a word, nothing. When they are gone, they are.

The world's rain forests still hold a host of secrets, many of which are being slowly unravelled as new discoveries of plant and animal life are made. According to conservative estimates, about 30 million species of plants and animals - more than half of all life forms on Earth - live in the tropical rain forests. But some scientists suggest there could be up to 80 million or more species living in this mysterious and still largely unexplored realm. This higher figure could very well be proved right as researchers probe the forest canopy, the treetop network of leaves, vines and branches that forms a world within a world. In these huge green expanses scores of meters above the forest floor, sky gardens of orchids and philodendrons bloom without benefit of soil. Birds avoid the rain by hanging upside down beneath broad leaves. Green iguanas climb aloft to bask nearer the tropical sun. Sloths dangle motionless for hours, avoiding eagles and other predators. And everywhere is the buzz and flutter of insects, which inhabit the rain forest in incredible variety and numbers. While new species of larger creatures such as a dwarf deer identified in Vietnam's Vu Quag forest in April are rarely discovered, the insect world still offers plentiful newness, especially in the rain forest canopy.

This treetop world enchants Andrew Mitchell, an Oxford-based naturalist and author who is program director for Earth Watch, an organisation that matches volunteer members of the public with scientific and conservation projects worldwide. Mitchell has extensively explored the rain forests of Asia and Latin America, making perilous climbs into the canopy, which he describes as the "penthouse where the trees have their sex lives". The canopy is physically and biologically the most active part of any rain forest. With its complex system of interdependence among animals, plants and insects, it is also the least understood. "Half of all life lives there and it's where the reproductive biology of trees goes on", explains Mitchell. "If we're trying to save rain forests, we won't get anywhere unless we understand how these trees reproduce". As commercial development encroaches ever deeper into once-remote areas, saving the rain forests is becoming an increasingly urgent task. Some 6% of Earth's land area is rain forest, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature, and more than 1% of that - about 17 million hectares - is being lost each year through logging, mining and agriculture.

Three percent deficit criteria

Passage – I

The European Union must launch its planned single currency on time or risk serious set-backs even though Germany- the driving force behind integration- might itself miss key entry targets, senior German central bank officials said on Monday night.
Three members of the Bundesbank’s ruling council, speaking at separate events in Germany, warned that nations struggling to meet the fiscal entry criteria while still recovering from severe recession should avoid any temptation to postpone the 1999 start of the monetary union.
Although this might seem like a less painful, and therefore, a desirable option, Mr. Guntram Palm, president of the state central bank in Beden Wuerttemberg, said all talk of delaying the start date was “totally misplaced”.
Such a decision would lend to an immediate, severe appreciation of the German mark, which would hurt German exports as well as stunt nation’s efforts to achieve a further consolidation of finances.
One reason that talk of a delay has reached new heights might be that so many nations, including Germany, risked missing the key criteria which call for an aspiring nation’s budget deficit to remain below three percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and that its debt should not exceed a reference value of 60 percent of the GDP.
Klaus-Dieter Kuehbacher, president of the state central bank in Berlin and Brandenburg, said that he doubted whether the German government would reach its goal of holding its budget deficit to 2.9 percent of GDP in 1997.
But the three also acknowledged that the deficit goal was only one of a number of entry criteria and that it might ultimately not be the most instrumental to sustaining a stable currency union.
The Maastricht Treaty also states that participating nations must present stable foreign exchange rates as well as low long-term interest and inflation rates and many more nations fulfill these goals.
“In my opinion, European currency union can start in January 1999, while conforming to those EMU convergence criteria that are most often discussed.” said Ernst Welteke, president of the state central bank in Hesse. Welteke said he wondered how a budget deficit of less than three percent would be good for stability, while a budget deficit of slightly more than three percent would be negative.
At the same time, he added, “Fiscal stability in currency union is naturally a very important asset as it ensures that fiscal solidity of the individual members can be closely monitored.”
Fearing strict entry criteria could give way to creative book-keeping, Mr. Palm said, “A trick-free deficit of just over three percent in 1997 that will be further reduced in following years due to savings efforts is preferable to 2.9 percent reached through creative accounting.”
Mr. Welteke added that the three percent deficit criteria should not be a knock-out criteria”, prohibiting any nation just over that level from entering. Both Mr. Palm and Mr. Welteke feel the currency union will go ahead as planned with Germany and France, noting that a currency union without them would make little sense. Officials, however, part ways on whether the union will be a small or a slightly larger one at the beginning. Mr. Palm noticing that most nations already meeting the other criteria, forecasts a bigger circle, but Mr. Kuehbacher saw fewer members.

The criterion that the budget deficit should remain below 3% of the GDP may not prove effective in the long run. This is the view of

Passage – I

The European Union must launch its planned single currency on time or risk serious set-backs even though Germany- the driving force behind integration- might itself miss key entry targets, senior German central bank officials said on Monday night.
Three members of the Bundesbank’s ruling council, speaking at separate events in Germany, warned that nations struggling to meet the fiscal entry criteria while still recovering from severe recession should avoid any temptation to postpone the 1999 start of the monetary union.
Although this might seem like a less painful, and therefore, a desirable option, Mr. Guntram Palm, president of the state central bank in Beden Wuerttemberg, said all talk of delaying the start date was “totally misplaced”.
Such a decision would lend to an immediate, severe appreciation of the German mark, which would hurt German exports as well as stunt nation’s efforts to achieve a further consolidation of finances.
One reason that talk of a delay has reached new heights might be that so many nations, including Germany, risked missing the key criteria which call for an aspiring nation’s budget deficit to remain below three percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and that its debt should not exceed a reference value of 60 percent of the GDP.
Klaus-Dieter Kuehbacher, president of the state central bank in Berlin and Brandenburg, said that he doubted whether the German government would reach its goal of holding its budget deficit to 2.9 percent of GDP in 1997.
But the three also acknowledged that the deficit goal was only one of a number of entry criteria and that it might ultimately not be the most instrumental to sustaining a stable currency union.
The Maastricht Treaty also states that participating nations must present stable foreign exchange rates as well as low long-term interest and inflation rates and many more nations fulfill these goals.
“In my opinion, European currency union can start in January 1999, while conforming to those EMU convergence criteria that are most often discussed.” said Ernst Welteke, president of the state central bank in Hesse. Welteke said he wondered how a budget deficit of less than three percent would be good for stability, while a budget deficit of slightly more than three percent would be negative.
At the same time, he added, “Fiscal stability in currency union is naturally a very important asset as it ensures that fiscal solidity of the individual members can be closely monitored.”
Fearing strict entry criteria could give way to creative book-keeping, Mr. Palm said, “A trick-free deficit of just over three percent in 1997 that will be further reduced in following years due to savings efforts is preferable to 2.9 percent reached through creative accounting.”
Mr. Welteke added that the three percent deficit criteria should not be a knock-out criteria”, prohibiting any nation just over that level from entering. Both Mr. Palm and Mr. Welteke feel the currency union will go ahead as planned with Germany and France, noting that a currency union without them would make little sense. Officials, however, part ways on whether the union will be a small or a slightly larger one at the beginning. Mr. Palm noticing that most nations already meeting the other criteria, forecasts a bigger circle, but Mr. Kuehbacher saw fewer members.

The passage is mainly about

Passage – I

The European Union must launch its planned single currency on time or risk serious set-backs even though Germany- the driving force behind integration- might itself miss key entry targets, senior German central bank officials said on Monday night.
Three members of the Bundesbank’s ruling council, speaking at separate events in Germany, warned that nations struggling to meet the fiscal entry criteria while still recovering from severe recession should avoid any temptation to postpone the 1999 start of the monetary union.
Although this might seem like a less painful, and therefore, a desirable option, Mr. Guntram Palm, president of the state central bank in Beden Wuerttemberg, said all talk of delaying the start date was “totally misplaced”.
Such a decision would lend to an immediate, severe appreciation of the German mark, which would hurt German exports as well as stunt nation’s efforts to achieve a further consolidation of finances.
One reason that talk of a delay has reached new heights might be that so many nations, including Germany, risked missing the key criteria which call for an aspiring nation’s budget deficit to remain below three percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and that its debt should not exceed a reference value of 60 percent of the GDP.
Klaus-Dieter Kuehbacher, president of the state central bank in Berlin and Brandenburg, said that he doubted whether the German government would reach its goal of holding its budget deficit to 2.9 percent of GDP in 1997.
But the three also acknowledged that the deficit goal was only one of a number of entry criteria and that it might ultimately not be the most instrumental to sustaining a stable currency union.
The Maastricht Treaty also states that participating nations must present stable foreign exchange rates as well as low long-term interest and inflation rates and many more nations fulfill these goals.
“In my opinion, European currency union can start in January 1999, while conforming to those EMU convergence criteria that are most often discussed.” said Ernst Welteke, president of the state central bank in Hesse. Welteke said he wondered how a budget deficit of less than three percent would be good for stability, while a budget deficit of slightly more than three percent would be negative.
At the same time, he added, “Fiscal stability in currency union is naturally a very important asset as it ensures that fiscal solidity of the individual members can be closely monitored.”
Fearing strict entry criteria could give way to creative book-keeping, Mr. Palm said, “A trick-free deficit of just over three percent in 1997 that will be further reduced in following years due to savings efforts is preferable to 2.9 percent reached through creative accounting.”
Mr. Welteke added that the three percent deficit criteria should not be a knock-out criteria”, prohibiting any nation just over that level from entering. Both Mr. Palm and Mr. Welteke feel the currency union will go ahead as planned with Germany and France, noting that a currency union without them would make little sense. Officials, however, part ways on whether the union will be a small or a slightly larger one at the beginning. Mr. Palm noticing that most nations already meeting the other criteria, forecasts a bigger circle, but Mr. Kuehbacher saw fewer members.

According to the passage, the talk of a delay in implementation of the EMU plan has acquired heat because

Passage – I

The European Union must launch its planned single currency on time or risk serious set-backs even though Germany- the driving force behind integration- might itself miss key entry targets, senior German central bank officials said on Monday night.
Three members of the Bundesbank’s ruling council, speaking at separate events in Germany, warned that nations struggling to meet the fiscal entry criteria while still recovering from severe recession should avoid any temptation to postpone the 1999 start of the monetary union.
Although this might seem like a less painful, and therefore, a desirable option, Mr. Guntram Palm, president of the state central bank in Beden Wuerttemberg, said all talk of delaying the start date was “totally misplaced”.
Such a decision would lend to an immediate, severe appreciation of the German mark, which would hurt German exports as well as stunt nation’s efforts to achieve a further consolidation of finances.
One reason that talk of a delay has reached new heights might be that so many nations, including Germany, risked missing the key criteria which call for an aspiring nation’s budget deficit to remain below three percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and that its debt should not exceed a reference value of 60 percent of the GDP.
Klaus-Dieter Kuehbacher, president of the state central bank in Berlin and Brandenburg, said that he doubted whether the German government would reach its goal of holding its budget deficit to 2.9 percent of GDP in 1997.
But the three also acknowledged that the deficit goal was only one of a number of entry criteria and that it might ultimately not be the most instrumental to sustaining a stable currency union.
The Maastricht Treaty also states that participating nations must present stable foreign exchange rates as well as low long-term interest and inflation rates and many more nations fulfill these goals.
“In my opinion, European currency union can start in January 1999, while conforming to those EMU convergence criteria that are most often discussed.” said Ernst Welteke, president of the state central bank in Hesse. Welteke said he wondered how a budget deficit of less than three percent would be good for stability, while a budget deficit of slightly more than three percent would be negative.
At the same time, he added, “Fiscal stability in currency union is naturally a very important asset as it ensures that fiscal solidity of the individual members can be closely monitored.”
Fearing strict entry criteria could give way to creative book-keeping, Mr. Palm said, “A trick-free deficit of just over three percent in 1997 that will be further reduced in following years due to savings efforts is preferable to 2.9 percent reached through creative accounting.”
Mr. Welteke added that the three percent deficit criteria should not be a knock-out criteria”, prohibiting any nation just over that level from entering. Both Mr. Palm and Mr. Welteke feel the currency union will go ahead as planned with Germany and France, noting that a currency union without them would make little sense. Officials, however, part ways on whether the union will be a small or a slightly larger one at the beginning. Mr. Palm noticing that most nations already meeting the other criteria, forecasts a bigger circle, but Mr. Kuehbacher saw fewer members.

'The Maastricht Treaty' describes

Passage – I

The European Union must launch its planned single currency on time or risk serious set-backs even though Germany- the driving force behind integration- might itself miss key entry targets, senior German central bank officials said on Monday night.
Three members of the Bundesbank’s ruling council, speaking at separate events in Germany, warned that nations struggling to meet the fiscal entry criteria while still recovering from severe recession should avoid any temptation to postpone the 1999 start of the monetary union.
Although this might seem like a less painful, and therefore, a desirable option, Mr. Guntram Palm, president of the state central bank in Beden Wuerttemberg, said all talk of delaying the start date was “totally misplaced”.
Such a decision would lend to an immediate, severe appreciation of the German mark, which would hurt German exports as well as stunt nation’s efforts to achieve a further consolidation of finances.
One reason that talk of a delay has reached new heights might be that so many nations, including Germany, risked missing the key criteria which call for an aspiring nation’s budget deficit to remain below three percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and that its debt should not exceed a reference value of 60 percent of the GDP.
Klaus-Dieter Kuehbacher, president of the state central bank in Berlin and Brandenburg, said that he doubted whether the German government would reach its goal of holding its budget deficit to 2.9 percent of GDP in 1997.
But the three also acknowledged that the deficit goal was only one of a number of entry criteria and that it might ultimately not be the most instrumental to sustaining a stable currency union.
The Maastricht Treaty also states that participating nations must present stable foreign exchange rates as well as low long-term interest and inflation rates and many more nations fulfill these goals.
“In my opinion, European currency union can start in January 1999, while conforming to those EMU convergence criteria that are most often discussed.” said Ernst Welteke, president of the state central bank in Hesse. Welteke said he wondered how a budget deficit of less than three percent would be good for stability, while a budget deficit of slightly more than three percent would be negative.
At the same time, he added, “Fiscal stability in currency union is naturally a very important asset as it ensures that fiscal solidity of the individual members can be closely monitored.”
Fearing strict entry criteria could give way to creative book-keeping, Mr. Palm said, “A trick-free deficit of just over three percent in 1997 that will be further reduced in following years due to savings efforts is preferable to 2.9 percent reached through creative accounting.”
Mr. Welteke added that the three percent deficit criteria should not be a knock-out criteria”, prohibiting any nation just over that level from entering. Both Mr. Palm and Mr. Welteke feel the currency union will go ahead as planned with Germany and France, noting that a currency union without them would make little sense. Officials, however, part ways on whether the union will be a small or a slightly larger one at the beginning. Mr. Palm noticing that most nations already meeting the other criteria, forecasts a bigger circle, but Mr. Kuehbacher saw fewer members.

What do you infer about the policy of the currency union?

Passage – I

The European Union must launch its planned single currency on time or risk serious set-backs even though Germany- the driving force behind integration- might itself miss key entry targets, senior German central bank officials said on Monday night.
Three members of the Bundesbank’s ruling council, speaking at separate events in Germany, warned that nations struggling to meet the fiscal entry criteria while still recovering from severe recession should avoid any temptation to postpone the 1999 start of the monetary union.
Although this might seem like a less painful, and therefore, a desirable option, Mr. Guntram Palm, president of the state central bank in Beden Wuerttemberg, said all talk of delaying the start date was “totally misplaced”.
Such a decision would lend to an immediate, severe appreciation of the German mark, which would hurt German exports as well as stunt nation’s efforts to achieve a further consolidation of finances.
One reason that talk of a delay has reached new heights might be that so many nations, including Germany, risked missing the key criteria which call for an aspiring nation’s budget deficit to remain below three percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and that its debt should not exceed a reference value of 60 percent of the GDP.
Klaus-Dieter Kuehbacher, president of the state central bank in Berlin and Brandenburg, said that he doubted whether the German government would reach its goal of holding its budget deficit to 2.9 percent of GDP in 1997.
But the three also acknowledged that the deficit goal was only one of a number of entry criteria and that it might ultimately not be the most instrumental to sustaining a stable currency union.
The Maastricht Treaty also states that participating nations must present stable foreign exchange rates as well as low long-term interest and inflation rates and many more nations fulfill these goals.
“In my opinion, European currency union can start in January 1999, while conforming to those EMU convergence criteria that are most often discussed.” said Ernst Welteke, president of the state central bank in Hesse. Welteke said he wondered how a budget deficit of less than three percent would be good for stability, while a budget deficit of slightly more than three percent would be negative.
At the same time, he added, “Fiscal stability in currency union is naturally a very important asset as it ensures that fiscal solidity of the individual members can be closely monitored.”
Fearing strict entry criteria could give way to creative book-keeping, Mr. Palm said, “A trick-free deficit of just over three percent in 1997 that will be further reduced in following years due to savings efforts is preferable to 2.9 percent reached through creative accounting.”
Mr. Welteke added that the three percent deficit criteria should not be a knock-out criteria”, prohibiting any nation just over that level from entering. Both Mr. Palm and Mr. Welteke feel the currency union will go ahead as planned with Germany and France, noting that a currency union without them would make little sense. Officials, however, part ways on whether the union will be a small or a slightly larger one at the beginning. Mr. Palm noticing that most nations already meeting the other criteria, forecasts a bigger circle, but Mr. Kuehbacher saw fewer members.