Datasets:

tasksource

/

lsat-rc

like 0

In 1968 the United States Congress passed the Fair Housing Act, intended to counter discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in the sale and leasing of housing. In Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman (1982), the United States Supreme Court attempted to define for the Fair Housing Act those persons who fulfill the "standing" requirement, which holds that only those parties having a personal stake in the outcome of a controversy are warranted to bring suit. Specifically, the Court was asked to decide whether a "tester" (an individual who, without an intent to rent or purchase a dwelling, poses as a renter or purchaser for the purpose of investigating rental/sales practices) has standing. The Court was also asked whether an organization has standing to sue on its own behalf. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman originated in a class action suit filed in a local court in 1979. The plaintiffs were two testers—a black woman named Sylvia Coleman and a white man named R. Kent Willis—and HOME, a nonprofit fair housing organization. The plaintiffs alleged that Havens Realty had engaged in discriminatory practices such as showing each tester apartments only in buildings occupied primarily by that person's racial group and telling the plaintiffs conflicting stories regarding the availability of individual apartments. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, holding that they lacked the required standing under the act. According to the court, only a person who actually intended to rent would meet the act's requirements. The case eventually came before the United States Supreme Court, which held that Coleman and Willis, as testers, did have standing to sue. In deciding the case, the Court looked to the appropriate sections of the Fair Housing Act. Section 804(d) states that it is unlawful "to represent to any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex that any dwelling is not available ... when such dwelling is in fact so available." The Court reasoned that the act "conferred on all persons a legal right to truthful information about available housing." The testers had therefore suffered the exact injury made unlawful by the statute and thus it is irrelevant whether the tester intended to either rent or buy the dwelling. The Court also had to resolve whether HOME had a right to sue as an organization. The Court held that, like the individual plaintiffs, HOME had to show a direct or threatened injury caused by the defendant. HOME averred that it had been frustrated by the defendant's discriminatory practices in its effort to assist equal access to housing, and had been forced to devote significant resources to identifying and counteracting the said discriminatory practices. The Court agreed that the injury alleged by HOME was concrete and decided that the organization did have standing in this case.

india3_2-RC_4_24

Which one of the following best describes the organization of the passage?

In 1968 the United States Congress passed the Fair Housing Act, intended to counter discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in the sale and leasing of housing. In Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman (1982), the United States Supreme Court attempted to define for the Fair Housing Act those persons who fulfill the "standing" requirement, which holds that only those parties having a personal stake in the outcome of a controversy are warranted to bring suit. Specifically, the Court was asked to decide whether a "tester" (an individual who, without an intent to rent or purchase a dwelling, poses as a renter or purchaser for the purpose of investigating rental/sales practices) has standing. The Court was also asked whether an organization has standing to sue on its own behalf. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman originated in a class action suit filed in a local court in 1979. The plaintiffs were two testers—a black woman named Sylvia Coleman and a white man named R. Kent Willis—and HOME, a nonprofit fair housing organization. The plaintiffs alleged that Havens Realty had engaged in discriminatory practices such as showing each tester apartments only in buildings occupied primarily by that person's racial group and telling the plaintiffs conflicting stories regarding the availability of individual apartments. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, holding that they lacked the required standing under the act. According to the court, only a person who actually intended to rent would meet the act's requirements. The case eventually came before the United States Supreme Court, which held that Coleman and Willis, as testers, did have standing to sue. In deciding the case, the Court looked to the appropriate sections of the Fair Housing Act. Section 804(d) states that it is unlawful "to represent to any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex that any dwelling is not available ... when such dwelling is in fact so available." The Court reasoned that the act "conferred on all persons a legal right to truthful information about available housing." The testers had therefore suffered the exact injury made unlawful by the statute and thus it is irrelevant whether the tester intended to either rent or buy the dwelling. The Court also had to resolve whether HOME had a right to sue as an organization. The Court held that, like the individual plaintiffs, HOME had to show a direct or threatened injury caused by the defendant. HOME averred that it had been frustrated by the defendant's discriminatory practices in its effort to assist equal access to housing, and had been forced to devote significant resources to identifying and counteracting the said discriminatory practices. The Court agreed that the injury alleged by HOME was concrete and decided that the organization did have standing in this case.

india3_2-RC_4_25

Which one of the following is most likely to be an example of the use of resources claimed by HOME to have been necessitated by the defendant?

In 1968 the United States Congress passed the Fair Housing Act, intended to counter discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in the sale and leasing of housing. In Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman (1982), the United States Supreme Court attempted to define for the Fair Housing Act those persons who fulfill the "standing" requirement, which holds that only those parties having a personal stake in the outcome of a controversy are warranted to bring suit. Specifically, the Court was asked to decide whether a "tester" (an individual who, without an intent to rent or purchase a dwelling, poses as a renter or purchaser for the purpose of investigating rental/sales practices) has standing. The Court was also asked whether an organization has standing to sue on its own behalf. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman originated in a class action suit filed in a local court in 1979. The plaintiffs were two testers—a black woman named Sylvia Coleman and a white man named R. Kent Willis—and HOME, a nonprofit fair housing organization. The plaintiffs alleged that Havens Realty had engaged in discriminatory practices such as showing each tester apartments only in buildings occupied primarily by that person's racial group and telling the plaintiffs conflicting stories regarding the availability of individual apartments. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, holding that they lacked the required standing under the act. According to the court, only a person who actually intended to rent would meet the act's requirements. The case eventually came before the United States Supreme Court, which held that Coleman and Willis, as testers, did have standing to sue. In deciding the case, the Court looked to the appropriate sections of the Fair Housing Act. Section 804(d) states that it is unlawful "to represent to any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex that any dwelling is not available ... when such dwelling is in fact so available." The Court reasoned that the act "conferred on all persons a legal right to truthful information about available housing." The testers had therefore suffered the exact injury made unlawful by the statute and thus it is irrelevant whether the tester intended to either rent or buy the dwelling. The Court also had to resolve whether HOME had a right to sue as an organization. The Court held that, like the individual plaintiffs, HOME had to show a direct or threatened injury caused by the defendant. HOME averred that it had been frustrated by the defendant's discriminatory practices in its effort to assist equal access to housing, and had been forced to devote significant resources to identifying and counteracting the said discriminatory practices. The Court agreed that the injury alleged by HOME was concrete and decided that the organization did have standing in this case.

india3_2-RC_4_26

The "injury made unlawful by the statute" (lines 43-C44) refers to which one of the following?

The effects of the introduction of language upon human behavior are easily surmised. Language allowed rules for proper behavior to be communicated to children by precept and enforced among adults by gossip. Effective responses to different circumstances were usually guaranteed by traditional rules of behavior, and frictions were minimized because everyone knew what to expect of others in all ordinary situations. Such knowledge minimized quarrels, maximized effective cooperation, and allowed an increasingly complex division of labor among large numbers of individuals who spoke the same language. Language, however, also makes it easier to improve our behavioral responses when experience disappoints expectation. It helps us to move to and fro in imagined time, remembering useful things from the past and planning what to do in the future. Language is so powerful and pervasive in human lives that it seems right to say that our ancestors became fully human only when they began to use language and to act not on the basis of sensory stimuli alone but in accordance with plans and hopes and verbally formulated ideas about themselves and everything around them. Once the face-to-face verbal coordination of most everyday behavior had been achieved, major subsequent landmarks of human history depended principally on improvements in communication that allowed messages to travel farther and more accurately across time and distance than spoken words ordinarily do. Networks of messages, delivered in verbal form, supplemented by gesture, and sometimes solemnized by ritual, created and sustained local human communities. Eventually an increasing number of these primary communities came to be incorporated into larger communication networks centered in cities and sustaining what we call civilizations. As compared to primary communities, civilizations were tumultuous and unstable social structures, but they were also more powerful, exerting control over the natural environment and coordinating the actions of larger numbers of persons partly by obedience to commands, and partly by negotiated, more or less voluntary, exchanges of goods and services. Ever since the first civilizations arose, civilized social complexity has tended to spread, until in our own time almost all humankind is caught up in a single global system, furiously exchanging messages and upsetting traditional ways of life almost everywhere. The details of how small roving bands with only sporadic outside contacts evolved into today's unified world cannot be fully known. However, an imaginative historian can hope to discern major landmarks in the civilizing process by focusing on breakthroughs in communication that altered the range and flow of messages among human populations, thereby accelerating the propagation of novelties and meeting human needs and wants better than before.

india5_3-RC_1_1

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

The effects of the introduction of language upon human behavior are easily surmised. Language allowed rules for proper behavior to be communicated to children by precept and enforced among adults by gossip. Effective responses to different circumstances were usually guaranteed by traditional rules of behavior, and frictions were minimized because everyone knew what to expect of others in all ordinary situations. Such knowledge minimized quarrels, maximized effective cooperation, and allowed an increasingly complex division of labor among large numbers of individuals who spoke the same language. Language, however, also makes it easier to improve our behavioral responses when experience disappoints expectation. It helps us to move to and fro in imagined time, remembering useful things from the past and planning what to do in the future. Language is so powerful and pervasive in human lives that it seems right to say that our ancestors became fully human only when they began to use language and to act not on the basis of sensory stimuli alone but in accordance with plans and hopes and verbally formulated ideas about themselves and everything around them. Once the face-to-face verbal coordination of most everyday behavior had been achieved, major subsequent landmarks of human history depended principally on improvements in communication that allowed messages to travel farther and more accurately across time and distance than spoken words ordinarily do. Networks of messages, delivered in verbal form, supplemented by gesture, and sometimes solemnized by ritual, created and sustained local human communities. Eventually an increasing number of these primary communities came to be incorporated into larger communication networks centered in cities and sustaining what we call civilizations. As compared to primary communities, civilizations were tumultuous and unstable social structures, but they were also more powerful, exerting control over the natural environment and coordinating the actions of larger numbers of persons partly by obedience to commands, and partly by negotiated, more or less voluntary, exchanges of goods and services. Ever since the first civilizations arose, civilized social complexity has tended to spread, until in our own time almost all humankind is caught up in a single global system, furiously exchanging messages and upsetting traditional ways of life almost everywhere. The details of how small roving bands with only sporadic outside contacts evolved into today's unified world cannot be fully known. However, an imaginative historian can hope to discern major landmarks in the civilizing process by focusing on breakthroughs in communication that altered the range and flow of messages among human populations, thereby accelerating the propagation of novelties and meeting human needs and wants better than before.

india5_3-RC_1_2

According to the passage, one way in which urban civilizations coordinate the behavior of large numbers of people more powerfully than primary communities can is through

The effects of the introduction of language upon human behavior are easily surmised. Language allowed rules for proper behavior to be communicated to children by precept and enforced among adults by gossip. Effective responses to different circumstances were usually guaranteed by traditional rules of behavior, and frictions were minimized because everyone knew what to expect of others in all ordinary situations. Such knowledge minimized quarrels, maximized effective cooperation, and allowed an increasingly complex division of labor among large numbers of individuals who spoke the same language. Language, however, also makes it easier to improve our behavioral responses when experience disappoints expectation. It helps us to move to and fro in imagined time, remembering useful things from the past and planning what to do in the future. Language is so powerful and pervasive in human lives that it seems right to say that our ancestors became fully human only when they began to use language and to act not on the basis of sensory stimuli alone but in accordance with plans and hopes and verbally formulated ideas about themselves and everything around them. Once the face-to-face verbal coordination of most everyday behavior had been achieved, major subsequent landmarks of human history depended principally on improvements in communication that allowed messages to travel farther and more accurately across time and distance than spoken words ordinarily do. Networks of messages, delivered in verbal form, supplemented by gesture, and sometimes solemnized by ritual, created and sustained local human communities. Eventually an increasing number of these primary communities came to be incorporated into larger communication networks centered in cities and sustaining what we call civilizations. As compared to primary communities, civilizations were tumultuous and unstable social structures, but they were also more powerful, exerting control over the natural environment and coordinating the actions of larger numbers of persons partly by obedience to commands, and partly by negotiated, more or less voluntary, exchanges of goods and services. Ever since the first civilizations arose, civilized social complexity has tended to spread, until in our own time almost all humankind is caught up in a single global system, furiously exchanging messages and upsetting traditional ways of life almost everywhere. The details of how small roving bands with only sporadic outside contacts evolved into today's unified world cannot be fully known. However, an imaginative historian can hope to discern major landmarks in the civilizing process by focusing on breakthroughs in communication that altered the range and flow of messages among human populations, thereby accelerating the propagation of novelties and meeting human needs and wants better than before.

india5_3-RC_1_3

By "imagined time" (line 16) the author most likely means

The effects of the introduction of language upon human behavior are easily surmised. Language allowed rules for proper behavior to be communicated to children by precept and enforced among adults by gossip. Effective responses to different circumstances were usually guaranteed by traditional rules of behavior, and frictions were minimized because everyone knew what to expect of others in all ordinary situations. Such knowledge minimized quarrels, maximized effective cooperation, and allowed an increasingly complex division of labor among large numbers of individuals who spoke the same language. Language, however, also makes it easier to improve our behavioral responses when experience disappoints expectation. It helps us to move to and fro in imagined time, remembering useful things from the past and planning what to do in the future. Language is so powerful and pervasive in human lives that it seems right to say that our ancestors became fully human only when they began to use language and to act not on the basis of sensory stimuli alone but in accordance with plans and hopes and verbally formulated ideas about themselves and everything around them. Once the face-to-face verbal coordination of most everyday behavior had been achieved, major subsequent landmarks of human history depended principally on improvements in communication that allowed messages to travel farther and more accurately across time and distance than spoken words ordinarily do. Networks of messages, delivered in verbal form, supplemented by gesture, and sometimes solemnized by ritual, created and sustained local human communities. Eventually an increasing number of these primary communities came to be incorporated into larger communication networks centered in cities and sustaining what we call civilizations. As compared to primary communities, civilizations were tumultuous and unstable social structures, but they were also more powerful, exerting control over the natural environment and coordinating the actions of larger numbers of persons partly by obedience to commands, and partly by negotiated, more or less voluntary, exchanges of goods and services. Ever since the first civilizations arose, civilized social complexity has tended to spread, until in our own time almost all humankind is caught up in a single global system, furiously exchanging messages and upsetting traditional ways of life almost everywhere. The details of how small roving bands with only sporadic outside contacts evolved into today's unified world cannot be fully known. However, an imaginative historian can hope to discern major landmarks in the civilizing process by focusing on breakthroughs in communication that altered the range and flow of messages among human populations, thereby accelerating the propagation of novelties and meeting human needs and wants better than before.

india5_3-RC_1_4

All of the following meet the author's standard for identifying major landmarks of human history EXCEPT:

The effects of the introduction of language upon human behavior are easily surmised. Language allowed rules for proper behavior to be communicated to children by precept and enforced among adults by gossip. Effective responses to different circumstances were usually guaranteed by traditional rules of behavior, and frictions were minimized because everyone knew what to expect of others in all ordinary situations. Such knowledge minimized quarrels, maximized effective cooperation, and allowed an increasingly complex division of labor among large numbers of individuals who spoke the same language. Language, however, also makes it easier to improve our behavioral responses when experience disappoints expectation. It helps us to move to and fro in imagined time, remembering useful things from the past and planning what to do in the future. Language is so powerful and pervasive in human lives that it seems right to say that our ancestors became fully human only when they began to use language and to act not on the basis of sensory stimuli alone but in accordance with plans and hopes and verbally formulated ideas about themselves and everything around them. Once the face-to-face verbal coordination of most everyday behavior had been achieved, major subsequent landmarks of human history depended principally on improvements in communication that allowed messages to travel farther and more accurately across time and distance than spoken words ordinarily do. Networks of messages, delivered in verbal form, supplemented by gesture, and sometimes solemnized by ritual, created and sustained local human communities. Eventually an increasing number of these primary communities came to be incorporated into larger communication networks centered in cities and sustaining what we call civilizations. As compared to primary communities, civilizations were tumultuous and unstable social structures, but they were also more powerful, exerting control over the natural environment and coordinating the actions of larger numbers of persons partly by obedience to commands, and partly by negotiated, more or less voluntary, exchanges of goods and services. Ever since the first civilizations arose, civilized social complexity has tended to spread, until in our own time almost all humankind is caught up in a single global system, furiously exchanging messages and upsetting traditional ways of life almost everywhere. The details of how small roving bands with only sporadic outside contacts evolved into today's unified world cannot be fully known. However, an imaginative historian can hope to discern major landmarks in the civilizing process by focusing on breakthroughs in communication that altered the range and flow of messages among human populations, thereby accelerating the propagation of novelties and meeting human needs and wants better than before.

india5_3-RC_1_5

Each of the following is mentioned in the passage as something that the use of language does EXCEPT:

The effects of the introduction of language upon human behavior are easily surmised. Language allowed rules for proper behavior to be communicated to children by precept and enforced among adults by gossip. Effective responses to different circumstances were usually guaranteed by traditional rules of behavior, and frictions were minimized because everyone knew what to expect of others in all ordinary situations. Such knowledge minimized quarrels, maximized effective cooperation, and allowed an increasingly complex division of labor among large numbers of individuals who spoke the same language. Language, however, also makes it easier to improve our behavioral responses when experience disappoints expectation. It helps us to move to and fro in imagined time, remembering useful things from the past and planning what to do in the future. Language is so powerful and pervasive in human lives that it seems right to say that our ancestors became fully human only when they began to use language and to act not on the basis of sensory stimuli alone but in accordance with plans and hopes and verbally formulated ideas about themselves and everything around them. Once the face-to-face verbal coordination of most everyday behavior had been achieved, major subsequent landmarks of human history depended principally on improvements in communication that allowed messages to travel farther and more accurately across time and distance than spoken words ordinarily do. Networks of messages, delivered in verbal form, supplemented by gesture, and sometimes solemnized by ritual, created and sustained local human communities. Eventually an increasing number of these primary communities came to be incorporated into larger communication networks centered in cities and sustaining what we call civilizations. As compared to primary communities, civilizations were tumultuous and unstable social structures, but they were also more powerful, exerting control over the natural environment and coordinating the actions of larger numbers of persons partly by obedience to commands, and partly by negotiated, more or less voluntary, exchanges of goods and services. Ever since the first civilizations arose, civilized social complexity has tended to spread, until in our own time almost all humankind is caught up in a single global system, furiously exchanging messages and upsetting traditional ways of life almost everywhere. The details of how small roving bands with only sporadic outside contacts evolved into today's unified world cannot be fully known. However, an imaginative historian can hope to discern major landmarks in the civilizing process by focusing on breakthroughs in communication that altered the range and flow of messages among human populations, thereby accelerating the propagation of novelties and meeting human needs and wants better than before.

india5_3-RC_1_6

The passage suggests that all of the following are elements of civilization EXCEPT:

The effects of the introduction of language upon human behavior are easily surmised. Language allowed rules for proper behavior to be communicated to children by precept and enforced among adults by gossip. Effective responses to different circumstances were usually guaranteed by traditional rules of behavior, and frictions were minimized because everyone knew what to expect of others in all ordinary situations. Such knowledge minimized quarrels, maximized effective cooperation, and allowed an increasingly complex division of labor among large numbers of individuals who spoke the same language. Language, however, also makes it easier to improve our behavioral responses when experience disappoints expectation. It helps us to move to and fro in imagined time, remembering useful things from the past and planning what to do in the future. Language is so powerful and pervasive in human lives that it seems right to say that our ancestors became fully human only when they began to use language and to act not on the basis of sensory stimuli alone but in accordance with plans and hopes and verbally formulated ideas about themselves and everything around them. Once the face-to-face verbal coordination of most everyday behavior had been achieved, major subsequent landmarks of human history depended principally on improvements in communication that allowed messages to travel farther and more accurately across time and distance than spoken words ordinarily do. Networks of messages, delivered in verbal form, supplemented by gesture, and sometimes solemnized by ritual, created and sustained local human communities. Eventually an increasing number of these primary communities came to be incorporated into larger communication networks centered in cities and sustaining what we call civilizations. As compared to primary communities, civilizations were tumultuous and unstable social structures, but they were also more powerful, exerting control over the natural environment and coordinating the actions of larger numbers of persons partly by obedience to commands, and partly by negotiated, more or less voluntary, exchanges of goods and services. Ever since the first civilizations arose, civilized social complexity has tended to spread, until in our own time almost all humankind is caught up in a single global system, furiously exchanging messages and upsetting traditional ways of life almost everywhere. The details of how small roving bands with only sporadic outside contacts evolved into today's unified world cannot be fully known. However, an imaginative historian can hope to discern major landmarks in the civilizing process by focusing on breakthroughs in communication that altered the range and flow of messages among human populations, thereby accelerating the propagation of novelties and meeting human needs and wants better than before.

india5_3-RC_1_7

By the term "primary communities" (line 36) the author probably means

Passage A Though daguerreotypy and photography are obviously more closely related than daguerreotypy and painting, and though we do speak of them together, it is not mere pedantry to insist that the daguerreotype is not a photograph. The daguerreotype, like any art form, demands its own critical vocabulary, its own way of being seen and appreciated. For one thing, it had many inherent restrictions that would not have affected the painter or photographer. The daguerreotypist had to arrange a composition that would retain its authority when reduced to about 3 inches (7.62 cm) square, the most common plate size, and had to understand the nature of light and shadow on this highly polished silver plate at various distances from a lens. The length of the exposure in the daguerreotype necessitated the sitter's being quite still for some minutes, though this was eventually reduced to many seconds. Metal clamps were invented to hold the sitter's pose, and children were often tied in place; a stiff unnatural pose is one of the most common defects found in daguerreotypes, the blurred child another. The daguerreotypist had to rely on lighting, posing, composition, and a personal rapport with the sitter in order to overcome these potential problems. Still, those who witnessed the beauty of the form lamented its passing. Passage B In March 1839, Samuel Morse wrote that Daguerre's own daguerreotypes were "Rembrandt perfected." He understood what Daguerre had wrought, which was a beautiful leap, not of science, but of technology; here, for the first time, was art immaculately born of chemistry. The beauty of the daguerreotype was a compound of awe and delight. Other writers expressed their astonishment in terms that were quite uniform: "enchanting," "exquisitely perfect," "a piece of fairy work." Such fancy rhetoric is the expression of the unique thrill of seeing a brilliant and novel art form for the first time. And yet a great deal of this original pleasure remains for us today. Here in my hand is a daguerreotype. It is not famous, and it cannot be reproduced. The plate, as if it were a jewel, is enclosed in a case stamped with scrollwork. The image inside is the size of one's palm. Unlike any but the smallest paintings, it is an intimate art, meant only for one person at a time. Unfolding the case, one has on the left a rectangle of purple velvet, bordered with embossed gold leaves. The right-hand panel, seen straight on, is baffling: here is a small mirror in which one sees only part of one's face, superimposed onto three ghostlike shapes, graynegative faces with blank eyes atop the shape of some sort of clothing. But turn the mirror slightly and three full characters blaze out at you—a woman, man, and child. They are not merely an amalgam of mercury and silver on a copper surface, but a trace of life frozen forever in the sharpest detail of light and shadow.

india5_3-RC_2_8

Each passage provides information sufficient to answer which one of the following questions?

Passage A Though daguerreotypy and photography are obviously more closely related than daguerreotypy and painting, and though we do speak of them together, it is not mere pedantry to insist that the daguerreotype is not a photograph. The daguerreotype, like any art form, demands its own critical vocabulary, its own way of being seen and appreciated. For one thing, it had many inherent restrictions that would not have affected the painter or photographer. The daguerreotypist had to arrange a composition that would retain its authority when reduced to about 3 inches (7.62 cm) square, the most common plate size, and had to understand the nature of light and shadow on this highly polished silver plate at various distances from a lens. The length of the exposure in the daguerreotype necessitated the sitter's being quite still for some minutes, though this was eventually reduced to many seconds. Metal clamps were invented to hold the sitter's pose, and children were often tied in place; a stiff unnatural pose is one of the most common defects found in daguerreotypes, the blurred child another. The daguerreotypist had to rely on lighting, posing, composition, and a personal rapport with the sitter in order to overcome these potential problems. Still, those who witnessed the beauty of the form lamented its passing. Passage B In March 1839, Samuel Morse wrote that Daguerre's own daguerreotypes were "Rembrandt perfected." He understood what Daguerre had wrought, which was a beautiful leap, not of science, but of technology; here, for the first time, was art immaculately born of chemistry. The beauty of the daguerreotype was a compound of awe and delight. Other writers expressed their astonishment in terms that were quite uniform: "enchanting," "exquisitely perfect," "a piece of fairy work." Such fancy rhetoric is the expression of the unique thrill of seeing a brilliant and novel art form for the first time. And yet a great deal of this original pleasure remains for us today. Here in my hand is a daguerreotype. It is not famous, and it cannot be reproduced. The plate, as if it were a jewel, is enclosed in a case stamped with scrollwork. The image inside is the size of one's palm. Unlike any but the smallest paintings, it is an intimate art, meant only for one person at a time. Unfolding the case, one has on the left a rectangle of purple velvet, bordered with embossed gold leaves. The right-hand panel, seen straight on, is baffling: here is a small mirror in which one sees only part of one's face, superimposed onto three ghostlike shapes, graynegative faces with blank eyes atop the shape of some sort of clothing. But turn the mirror slightly and three full characters blaze out at you—a woman, man, and child. They are not merely an amalgam of mercury and silver on a copper surface, but a trace of life frozen forever in the sharpest detail of light and shadow.

india5_3-RC_2_9

Passage A, but not passage B, argues that

Passage A Though daguerreotypy and photography are obviously more closely related than daguerreotypy and painting, and though we do speak of them together, it is not mere pedantry to insist that the daguerreotype is not a photograph. The daguerreotype, like any art form, demands its own critical vocabulary, its own way of being seen and appreciated. For one thing, it had many inherent restrictions that would not have affected the painter or photographer. The daguerreotypist had to arrange a composition that would retain its authority when reduced to about 3 inches (7.62 cm) square, the most common plate size, and had to understand the nature of light and shadow on this highly polished silver plate at various distances from a lens. The length of the exposure in the daguerreotype necessitated the sitter's being quite still for some minutes, though this was eventually reduced to many seconds. Metal clamps were invented to hold the sitter's pose, and children were often tied in place; a stiff unnatural pose is one of the most common defects found in daguerreotypes, the blurred child another. The daguerreotypist had to rely on lighting, posing, composition, and a personal rapport with the sitter in order to overcome these potential problems. Still, those who witnessed the beauty of the form lamented its passing. Passage B In March 1839, Samuel Morse wrote that Daguerre's own daguerreotypes were "Rembrandt perfected." He understood what Daguerre had wrought, which was a beautiful leap, not of science, but of technology; here, for the first time, was art immaculately born of chemistry. The beauty of the daguerreotype was a compound of awe and delight. Other writers expressed their astonishment in terms that were quite uniform: "enchanting," "exquisitely perfect," "a piece of fairy work." Such fancy rhetoric is the expression of the unique thrill of seeing a brilliant and novel art form for the first time. And yet a great deal of this original pleasure remains for us today. Here in my hand is a daguerreotype. It is not famous, and it cannot be reproduced. The plate, as if it were a jewel, is enclosed in a case stamped with scrollwork. The image inside is the size of one's palm. Unlike any but the smallest paintings, it is an intimate art, meant only for one person at a time. Unfolding the case, one has on the left a rectangle of purple velvet, bordered with embossed gold leaves. The right-hand panel, seen straight on, is baffling: here is a small mirror in which one sees only part of one's face, superimposed onto three ghostlike shapes, graynegative faces with blank eyes atop the shape of some sort of clothing. But turn the mirror slightly and three full characters blaze out at you—a woman, man, and child. They are not merely an amalgam of mercury and silver on a copper surface, but a trace of life frozen forever in the sharpest detail of light and shadow.

india5_3-RC_2_10

Which one of the following most accurately describes how passage B relates to the statement in passage A that the daguerreotype demands its own way of being seen and appreciated?

Passage A Though daguerreotypy and photography are obviously more closely related than daguerreotypy and painting, and though we do speak of them together, it is not mere pedantry to insist that the daguerreotype is not a photograph. The daguerreotype, like any art form, demands its own critical vocabulary, its own way of being seen and appreciated. For one thing, it had many inherent restrictions that would not have affected the painter or photographer. The daguerreotypist had to arrange a composition that would retain its authority when reduced to about 3 inches (7.62 cm) square, the most common plate size, and had to understand the nature of light and shadow on this highly polished silver plate at various distances from a lens. The length of the exposure in the daguerreotype necessitated the sitter's being quite still for some minutes, though this was eventually reduced to many seconds. Metal clamps were invented to hold the sitter's pose, and children were often tied in place; a stiff unnatural pose is one of the most common defects found in daguerreotypes, the blurred child another. The daguerreotypist had to rely on lighting, posing, composition, and a personal rapport with the sitter in order to overcome these potential problems. Still, those who witnessed the beauty of the form lamented its passing. Passage B In March 1839, Samuel Morse wrote that Daguerre's own daguerreotypes were "Rembrandt perfected." He understood what Daguerre had wrought, which was a beautiful leap, not of science, but of technology; here, for the first time, was art immaculately born of chemistry. The beauty of the daguerreotype was a compound of awe and delight. Other writers expressed their astonishment in terms that were quite uniform: "enchanting," "exquisitely perfect," "a piece of fairy work." Such fancy rhetoric is the expression of the unique thrill of seeing a brilliant and novel art form for the first time. And yet a great deal of this original pleasure remains for us today. Here in my hand is a daguerreotype. It is not famous, and it cannot be reproduced. The plate, as if it were a jewel, is enclosed in a case stamped with scrollwork. The image inside is the size of one's palm. Unlike any but the smallest paintings, it is an intimate art, meant only for one person at a time. Unfolding the case, one has on the left a rectangle of purple velvet, bordered with embossed gold leaves. The right-hand panel, seen straight on, is baffling: here is a small mirror in which one sees only part of one's face, superimposed onto three ghostlike shapes, graynegative faces with blank eyes atop the shape of some sort of clothing. But turn the mirror slightly and three full characters blaze out at you—a woman, man, and child. They are not merely an amalgam of mercury and silver on a copper surface, but a trace of life frozen forever in the sharpest detail of light and shadow.

india5_3-RC_2_11

Which one of the following pairs of lectures is most analogous to passage A and passage B in terms of how these two passages stand in relation to each other?

Passage A Though daguerreotypy and photography are obviously more closely related than daguerreotypy and painting, and though we do speak of them together, it is not mere pedantry to insist that the daguerreotype is not a photograph. The daguerreotype, like any art form, demands its own critical vocabulary, its own way of being seen and appreciated. For one thing, it had many inherent restrictions that would not have affected the painter or photographer. The daguerreotypist had to arrange a composition that would retain its authority when reduced to about 3 inches (7.62 cm) square, the most common plate size, and had to understand the nature of light and shadow on this highly polished silver plate at various distances from a lens. The length of the exposure in the daguerreotype necessitated the sitter's being quite still for some minutes, though this was eventually reduced to many seconds. Metal clamps were invented to hold the sitter's pose, and children were often tied in place; a stiff unnatural pose is one of the most common defects found in daguerreotypes, the blurred child another. The daguerreotypist had to rely on lighting, posing, composition, and a personal rapport with the sitter in order to overcome these potential problems. Still, those who witnessed the beauty of the form lamented its passing. Passage B In March 1839, Samuel Morse wrote that Daguerre's own daguerreotypes were "Rembrandt perfected." He understood what Daguerre had wrought, which was a beautiful leap, not of science, but of technology; here, for the first time, was art immaculately born of chemistry. The beauty of the daguerreotype was a compound of awe and delight. Other writers expressed their astonishment in terms that were quite uniform: "enchanting," "exquisitely perfect," "a piece of fairy work." Such fancy rhetoric is the expression of the unique thrill of seeing a brilliant and novel art form for the first time. And yet a great deal of this original pleasure remains for us today. Here in my hand is a daguerreotype. It is not famous, and it cannot be reproduced. The plate, as if it were a jewel, is enclosed in a case stamped with scrollwork. The image inside is the size of one's palm. Unlike any but the smallest paintings, it is an intimate art, meant only for one person at a time. Unfolding the case, one has on the left a rectangle of purple velvet, bordered with embossed gold leaves. The right-hand panel, seen straight on, is baffling: here is a small mirror in which one sees only part of one's face, superimposed onto three ghostlike shapes, graynegative faces with blank eyes atop the shape of some sort of clothing. But turn the mirror slightly and three full characters blaze out at you—a woman, man, and child. They are not merely an amalgam of mercury and silver on a copper surface, but a trace of life frozen forever in the sharpest detail of light and shadow.

india5_3-RC_2_12

It can be inferred that the authors of both passages believe which one of the following?

A commission appointed by the government of the Canadian province of Ontario offered recommendations to assist judges and lawyers in recognizing language or actions that may cause some participants to feel excluded and therefore disenfranchised during court proceedings. One area of focus was the use of courtroom interpreters for people who are not fluent speakers of English or French. Although the Supreme Court of Canada had given explicit direction in 1994 concerning an accused person's right to interpreter assistance, many participants in the Canadian legal system still had concerns about the use of interpreters. In response to these concerns, the commission emphasized that all those involved in proceedings must understand the role of the interpreter. With this objective in mind, the commission stressed that all parties involved in legal proceedings must be made aware of the nature of interpretation. In order for judges and lawyers to make effective use of an interpreter in the courtroom, they must understand when an interpreter is necessary, appreciate the time required for interpretation, and develop an awareness of the nature of culturally informed interpretation as contrasted with mere literal interpretation. For example, uninformed judges and lawyers often expect interpreters to translate what is said word for word. In practice, however, this type of translation frequently fails to convey culturally specific meaning accurately and effectively, and is sometimes simply impossible because each language is structurally unique. One interpreter interviewed by the commission explained that while one language may use a word or short phrase to express a particular idea, others have no similarly concise equivalent, requiring the interpreter to use long descriptions of ideas in one language that can be expressed briefly in another. Many interpreters find that in the courtroom, uninformed judges and lawyers may suspect an interpreter of embellishing if the interpreter takes a long time to explain a point. Canadian law insists on impartiality in interpretation services. Parties to proceedings, relatives and friends of such parties, or persons otherwise close to the events giving rise to an accusation are ordinarily viewed as inappropriate interpreters in criminal proceedings. However, because some linguistic-minority communities, such as aboriginal communities, are small, in practice, court participants often know the court interpreter. In many cases, prior acquaintance does not matter and may be unavoidable. But to ensure fair proceedings, a defendant, victim, or other witness must fully understand the interpreter's role and be able to object to an interpreter whom he or she does not trust to be impartial. To these ends, the commission recommended that judges make clear in open court that the interpreter is a neutral professional, employed by the court to translate what is being said; that a defendant or any witness may object to a potentially biased interpreter; and that a defendant or an interpreter may request clarification at any time.

india5_3-RC_3_13

Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?

A commission appointed by the government of the Canadian province of Ontario offered recommendations to assist judges and lawyers in recognizing language or actions that may cause some participants to feel excluded and therefore disenfranchised during court proceedings. One area of focus was the use of courtroom interpreters for people who are not fluent speakers of English or French. Although the Supreme Court of Canada had given explicit direction in 1994 concerning an accused person's right to interpreter assistance, many participants in the Canadian legal system still had concerns about the use of interpreters. In response to these concerns, the commission emphasized that all those involved in proceedings must understand the role of the interpreter. With this objective in mind, the commission stressed that all parties involved in legal proceedings must be made aware of the nature of interpretation. In order for judges and lawyers to make effective use of an interpreter in the courtroom, they must understand when an interpreter is necessary, appreciate the time required for interpretation, and develop an awareness of the nature of culturally informed interpretation as contrasted with mere literal interpretation. For example, uninformed judges and lawyers often expect interpreters to translate what is said word for word. In practice, however, this type of translation frequently fails to convey culturally specific meaning accurately and effectively, and is sometimes simply impossible because each language is structurally unique. One interpreter interviewed by the commission explained that while one language may use a word or short phrase to express a particular idea, others have no similarly concise equivalent, requiring the interpreter to use long descriptions of ideas in one language that can be expressed briefly in another. Many interpreters find that in the courtroom, uninformed judges and lawyers may suspect an interpreter of embellishing if the interpreter takes a long time to explain a point. Canadian law insists on impartiality in interpretation services. Parties to proceedings, relatives and friends of such parties, or persons otherwise close to the events giving rise to an accusation are ordinarily viewed as inappropriate interpreters in criminal proceedings. However, because some linguistic-minority communities, such as aboriginal communities, are small, in practice, court participants often know the court interpreter. In many cases, prior acquaintance does not matter and may be unavoidable. But to ensure fair proceedings, a defendant, victim, or other witness must fully understand the interpreter's role and be able to object to an interpreter whom he or she does not trust to be impartial. To these ends, the commission recommended that judges make clear in open court that the interpreter is a neutral professional, employed by the court to translate what is being said; that a defendant or any witness may object to a potentially biased interpreter; and that a defendant or an interpreter may request clarification at any time.

india5_3-RC_3_14

According to the passage, the inadequacy of word-for-word translations in legal proceedings involving interpreters

A commission appointed by the government of the Canadian province of Ontario offered recommendations to assist judges and lawyers in recognizing language or actions that may cause some participants to feel excluded and therefore disenfranchised during court proceedings. One area of focus was the use of courtroom interpreters for people who are not fluent speakers of English or French. Although the Supreme Court of Canada had given explicit direction in 1994 concerning an accused person's right to interpreter assistance, many participants in the Canadian legal system still had concerns about the use of interpreters. In response to these concerns, the commission emphasized that all those involved in proceedings must understand the role of the interpreter. With this objective in mind, the commission stressed that all parties involved in legal proceedings must be made aware of the nature of interpretation. In order for judges and lawyers to make effective use of an interpreter in the courtroom, they must understand when an interpreter is necessary, appreciate the time required for interpretation, and develop an awareness of the nature of culturally informed interpretation as contrasted with mere literal interpretation. For example, uninformed judges and lawyers often expect interpreters to translate what is said word for word. In practice, however, this type of translation frequently fails to convey culturally specific meaning accurately and effectively, and is sometimes simply impossible because each language is structurally unique. One interpreter interviewed by the commission explained that while one language may use a word or short phrase to express a particular idea, others have no similarly concise equivalent, requiring the interpreter to use long descriptions of ideas in one language that can be expressed briefly in another. Many interpreters find that in the courtroom, uninformed judges and lawyers may suspect an interpreter of embellishing if the interpreter takes a long time to explain a point. Canadian law insists on impartiality in interpretation services. Parties to proceedings, relatives and friends of such parties, or persons otherwise close to the events giving rise to an accusation are ordinarily viewed as inappropriate interpreters in criminal proceedings. However, because some linguistic-minority communities, such as aboriginal communities, are small, in practice, court participants often know the court interpreter. In many cases, prior acquaintance does not matter and may be unavoidable. But to ensure fair proceedings, a defendant, victim, or other witness must fully understand the interpreter's role and be able to object to an interpreter whom he or she does not trust to be impartial. To these ends, the commission recommended that judges make clear in open court that the interpreter is a neutral professional, employed by the court to translate what is being said; that a defendant or any witness may object to a potentially biased interpreter; and that a defendant or an interpreter may request clarification at any time.

india5_3-RC_3_15

By "inappropriate interpreters" (lines 46-C47) the author most likely is referring to interpreters

A commission appointed by the government of the Canadian province of Ontario offered recommendations to assist judges and lawyers in recognizing language or actions that may cause some participants to feel excluded and therefore disenfranchised during court proceedings. One area of focus was the use of courtroom interpreters for people who are not fluent speakers of English or French. Although the Supreme Court of Canada had given explicit direction in 1994 concerning an accused person's right to interpreter assistance, many participants in the Canadian legal system still had concerns about the use of interpreters. In response to these concerns, the commission emphasized that all those involved in proceedings must understand the role of the interpreter. With this objective in mind, the commission stressed that all parties involved in legal proceedings must be made aware of the nature of interpretation. In order for judges and lawyers to make effective use of an interpreter in the courtroom, they must understand when an interpreter is necessary, appreciate the time required for interpretation, and develop an awareness of the nature of culturally informed interpretation as contrasted with mere literal interpretation. For example, uninformed judges and lawyers often expect interpreters to translate what is said word for word. In practice, however, this type of translation frequently fails to convey culturally specific meaning accurately and effectively, and is sometimes simply impossible because each language is structurally unique. One interpreter interviewed by the commission explained that while one language may use a word or short phrase to express a particular idea, others have no similarly concise equivalent, requiring the interpreter to use long descriptions of ideas in one language that can be expressed briefly in another. Many interpreters find that in the courtroom, uninformed judges and lawyers may suspect an interpreter of embellishing if the interpreter takes a long time to explain a point. Canadian law insists on impartiality in interpretation services. Parties to proceedings, relatives and friends of such parties, or persons otherwise close to the events giving rise to an accusation are ordinarily viewed as inappropriate interpreters in criminal proceedings. However, because some linguistic-minority communities, such as aboriginal communities, are small, in practice, court participants often know the court interpreter. In many cases, prior acquaintance does not matter and may be unavoidable. But to ensure fair proceedings, a defendant, victim, or other witness must fully understand the interpreter's role and be able to object to an interpreter whom he or she does not trust to be impartial. To these ends, the commission recommended that judges make clear in open court that the interpreter is a neutral professional, employed by the court to translate what is being said; that a defendant or any witness may object to a potentially biased interpreter; and that a defendant or an interpreter may request clarification at any time.

india5_3-RC_3_16

With which one of the following statements concerning impartiality in interpretation services would the author be most likely to agree?

A commission appointed by the government of the Canadian province of Ontario offered recommendations to assist judges and lawyers in recognizing language or actions that may cause some participants to feel excluded and therefore disenfranchised during court proceedings. One area of focus was the use of courtroom interpreters for people who are not fluent speakers of English or French. Although the Supreme Court of Canada had given explicit direction in 1994 concerning an accused person's right to interpreter assistance, many participants in the Canadian legal system still had concerns about the use of interpreters. In response to these concerns, the commission emphasized that all those involved in proceedings must understand the role of the interpreter. With this objective in mind, the commission stressed that all parties involved in legal proceedings must be made aware of the nature of interpretation. In order for judges and lawyers to make effective use of an interpreter in the courtroom, they must understand when an interpreter is necessary, appreciate the time required for interpretation, and develop an awareness of the nature of culturally informed interpretation as contrasted with mere literal interpretation. For example, uninformed judges and lawyers often expect interpreters to translate what is said word for word. In practice, however, this type of translation frequently fails to convey culturally specific meaning accurately and effectively, and is sometimes simply impossible because each language is structurally unique. One interpreter interviewed by the commission explained that while one language may use a word or short phrase to express a particular idea, others have no similarly concise equivalent, requiring the interpreter to use long descriptions of ideas in one language that can be expressed briefly in another. Many interpreters find that in the courtroom, uninformed judges and lawyers may suspect an interpreter of embellishing if the interpreter takes a long time to explain a point. Canadian law insists on impartiality in interpretation services. Parties to proceedings, relatives and friends of such parties, or persons otherwise close to the events giving rise to an accusation are ordinarily viewed as inappropriate interpreters in criminal proceedings. However, because some linguistic-minority communities, such as aboriginal communities, are small, in practice, court participants often know the court interpreter. In many cases, prior acquaintance does not matter and may be unavoidable. But to ensure fair proceedings, a defendant, victim, or other witness must fully understand the interpreter's role and be able to object to an interpreter whom he or she does not trust to be impartial. To these ends, the commission recommended that judges make clear in open court that the interpreter is a neutral professional, employed by the court to translate what is being said; that a defendant or any witness may object to a potentially biased interpreter; and that a defendant or an interpreter may request clarification at any time.

india5_3-RC_3_17

According to the passage, the situation in which a courtroom interpreter is acquainted with other participants in courtroom proceedings

A commission appointed by the government of the Canadian province of Ontario offered recommendations to assist judges and lawyers in recognizing language or actions that may cause some participants to feel excluded and therefore disenfranchised during court proceedings. One area of focus was the use of courtroom interpreters for people who are not fluent speakers of English or French. Although the Supreme Court of Canada had given explicit direction in 1994 concerning an accused person's right to interpreter assistance, many participants in the Canadian legal system still had concerns about the use of interpreters. In response to these concerns, the commission emphasized that all those involved in proceedings must understand the role of the interpreter. With this objective in mind, the commission stressed that all parties involved in legal proceedings must be made aware of the nature of interpretation. In order for judges and lawyers to make effective use of an interpreter in the courtroom, they must understand when an interpreter is necessary, appreciate the time required for interpretation, and develop an awareness of the nature of culturally informed interpretation as contrasted with mere literal interpretation. For example, uninformed judges and lawyers often expect interpreters to translate what is said word for word. In practice, however, this type of translation frequently fails to convey culturally specific meaning accurately and effectively, and is sometimes simply impossible because each language is structurally unique. One interpreter interviewed by the commission explained that while one language may use a word or short phrase to express a particular idea, others have no similarly concise equivalent, requiring the interpreter to use long descriptions of ideas in one language that can be expressed briefly in another. Many interpreters find that in the courtroom, uninformed judges and lawyers may suspect an interpreter of embellishing if the interpreter takes a long time to explain a point. Canadian law insists on impartiality in interpretation services. Parties to proceedings, relatives and friends of such parties, or persons otherwise close to the events giving rise to an accusation are ordinarily viewed as inappropriate interpreters in criminal proceedings. However, because some linguistic-minority communities, such as aboriginal communities, are small, in practice, court participants often know the court interpreter. In many cases, prior acquaintance does not matter and may be unavoidable. But to ensure fair proceedings, a defendant, victim, or other witness must fully understand the interpreter's role and be able to object to an interpreter whom he or she does not trust to be impartial. To these ends, the commission recommended that judges make clear in open court that the interpreter is a neutral professional, employed by the court to translate what is being said; that a defendant or any witness may object to a potentially biased interpreter; and that a defendant or an interpreter may request clarification at any time.

india5_3-RC_3_18

The author mentions the fact that ideas expressed concisely in one language may take much longer to express in another language (lines 32-C38) primarily in order to

A commission appointed by the government of the Canadian province of Ontario offered recommendations to assist judges and lawyers in recognizing language or actions that may cause some participants to feel excluded and therefore disenfranchised during court proceedings. One area of focus was the use of courtroom interpreters for people who are not fluent speakers of English or French. Although the Supreme Court of Canada had given explicit direction in 1994 concerning an accused person's right to interpreter assistance, many participants in the Canadian legal system still had concerns about the use of interpreters. In response to these concerns, the commission emphasized that all those involved in proceedings must understand the role of the interpreter. With this objective in mind, the commission stressed that all parties involved in legal proceedings must be made aware of the nature of interpretation. In order for judges and lawyers to make effective use of an interpreter in the courtroom, they must understand when an interpreter is necessary, appreciate the time required for interpretation, and develop an awareness of the nature of culturally informed interpretation as contrasted with mere literal interpretation. For example, uninformed judges and lawyers often expect interpreters to translate what is said word for word. In practice, however, this type of translation frequently fails to convey culturally specific meaning accurately and effectively, and is sometimes simply impossible because each language is structurally unique. One interpreter interviewed by the commission explained that while one language may use a word or short phrase to express a particular idea, others have no similarly concise equivalent, requiring the interpreter to use long descriptions of ideas in one language that can be expressed briefly in another. Many interpreters find that in the courtroom, uninformed judges and lawyers may suspect an interpreter of embellishing if the interpreter takes a long time to explain a point. Canadian law insists on impartiality in interpretation services. Parties to proceedings, relatives and friends of such parties, or persons otherwise close to the events giving rise to an accusation are ordinarily viewed as inappropriate interpreters in criminal proceedings. However, because some linguistic-minority communities, such as aboriginal communities, are small, in practice, court participants often know the court interpreter. In many cases, prior acquaintance does not matter and may be unavoidable. But to ensure fair proceedings, a defendant, victim, or other witness must fully understand the interpreter's role and be able to object to an interpreter whom he or she does not trust to be impartial. To these ends, the commission recommended that judges make clear in open court that the interpreter is a neutral professional, employed by the court to translate what is being said; that a defendant or any witness may object to a potentially biased interpreter; and that a defendant or an interpreter may request clarification at any time.

india5_3-RC_3_19

The passage most strongly suggests which one of the following about the role of courtroom interpreters?

For biologists, the term "eye" describes any lightsensitive organ consisting of more than one cell. Although most animals have eyes, eye structures vary widely. The compound eyes of insects and other arthropods, for example, have an architecture strikingly different from the single-lens eyes of vertebrates and mollusks. Until recently, most biologists believed that all the different kinds of eyes evolved independently from as many as forty ancestral prototypes, and not from a single ancestral prototype eye. Traditional means of tracking the evolutionary development of eyes included examinations of internal eye structures, which tended to support the multiple origin theory despite some anomalies such as the resemblance between mammals' eyes and the eyes of the nautilus mollusk—animals that are not closely related. Proponents of the multiple origin theory dismissed such examples as textbook cases of evolutionary convergence: the idea that even strikingly different prototype eyes could evolve into kinds of eyes remarkably similar to each other. In support of their theory, these biologists point to the fact that different species inhabiting the same environment frequently have very different eye structures from one another. This lack of correlation between eye structures and physical environments has provided what is perhaps the strongest support for the multiple origin theory. Adherents of the theory argue that if eyes originated from a single ancestral prototype, then there should be similarity in the patterns of eye evolution in species that evolved under the same environmental conditions. The inability of biologists to identify such evolutionary patterns is arguably the primary reason for this theory's widespread acceptance. In 1993, however, a crucial link was discovered: a control gene that activates the many genes needed for complete eye formation in fruit flies. Analogues to this gene have since been identified in many organisms, including earthworms, mice, and humans, and are expected to exist in all eye-bearing organisms. Researchers discovered that inserting the control gene present in mice into fruit flies results in the formation of functional fruit fly eyes. This suggests that the control genes in mice and in fruit flies are interchangeable and hence evolved from a single, common ancestral gene. The same may be true of all of these control genes, which would argue convincingly against the multiple origin theory and call for a reevaluation of the evidence that seemed to support the theory. For example, the lack of correlation between eye structures and physical environments may have resulted from the advantage bestowed by eyes. The survival value of sight is perhaps so great that even variations in eyes that might be less than optimal for some individuals in a particular environment are sufficiently advantageous that they allow the individuals to survive and propagate the variation, thus facilitating the proliferation of variations in eyes even in the absence of an environmental difference.

india5_3-RC_4_20

The author mentions that biologists accepted which one of the following as evidence for the theory that eyes evolved from multiple origins?

For biologists, the term "eye" describes any lightsensitive organ consisting of more than one cell. Although most animals have eyes, eye structures vary widely. The compound eyes of insects and other arthropods, for example, have an architecture strikingly different from the single-lens eyes of vertebrates and mollusks. Until recently, most biologists believed that all the different kinds of eyes evolved independently from as many as forty ancestral prototypes, and not from a single ancestral prototype eye. Traditional means of tracking the evolutionary development of eyes included examinations of internal eye structures, which tended to support the multiple origin theory despite some anomalies such as the resemblance between mammals' eyes and the eyes of the nautilus mollusk—animals that are not closely related. Proponents of the multiple origin theory dismissed such examples as textbook cases of evolutionary convergence: the idea that even strikingly different prototype eyes could evolve into kinds of eyes remarkably similar to each other. In support of their theory, these biologists point to the fact that different species inhabiting the same environment frequently have very different eye structures from one another. This lack of correlation between eye structures and physical environments has provided what is perhaps the strongest support for the multiple origin theory. Adherents of the theory argue that if eyes originated from a single ancestral prototype, then there should be similarity in the patterns of eye evolution in species that evolved under the same environmental conditions. The inability of biologists to identify such evolutionary patterns is arguably the primary reason for this theory's widespread acceptance. In 1993, however, a crucial link was discovered: a control gene that activates the many genes needed for complete eye formation in fruit flies. Analogues to this gene have since been identified in many organisms, including earthworms, mice, and humans, and are expected to exist in all eye-bearing organisms. Researchers discovered that inserting the control gene present in mice into fruit flies results in the formation of functional fruit fly eyes. This suggests that the control genes in mice and in fruit flies are interchangeable and hence evolved from a single, common ancestral gene. The same may be true of all of these control genes, which would argue convincingly against the multiple origin theory and call for a reevaluation of the evidence that seemed to support the theory. For example, the lack of correlation between eye structures and physical environments may have resulted from the advantage bestowed by eyes. The survival value of sight is perhaps so great that even variations in eyes that might be less than optimal for some individuals in a particular environment are sufficiently advantageous that they allow the individuals to survive and propagate the variation, thus facilitating the proliferation of variations in eyes even in the absence of an environmental difference.

india5_3-RC_4_21

The primary purpose of the passage is to

For biologists, the term "eye" describes any lightsensitive organ consisting of more than one cell. Although most animals have eyes, eye structures vary widely. The compound eyes of insects and other arthropods, for example, have an architecture strikingly different from the single-lens eyes of vertebrates and mollusks. Until recently, most biologists believed that all the different kinds of eyes evolved independently from as many as forty ancestral prototypes, and not from a single ancestral prototype eye. Traditional means of tracking the evolutionary development of eyes included examinations of internal eye structures, which tended to support the multiple origin theory despite some anomalies such as the resemblance between mammals' eyes and the eyes of the nautilus mollusk—animals that are not closely related. Proponents of the multiple origin theory dismissed such examples as textbook cases of evolutionary convergence: the idea that even strikingly different prototype eyes could evolve into kinds of eyes remarkably similar to each other. In support of their theory, these biologists point to the fact that different species inhabiting the same environment frequently have very different eye structures from one another. This lack of correlation between eye structures and physical environments has provided what is perhaps the strongest support for the multiple origin theory. Adherents of the theory argue that if eyes originated from a single ancestral prototype, then there should be similarity in the patterns of eye evolution in species that evolved under the same environmental conditions. The inability of biologists to identify such evolutionary patterns is arguably the primary reason for this theory's widespread acceptance. In 1993, however, a crucial link was discovered: a control gene that activates the many genes needed for complete eye formation in fruit flies. Analogues to this gene have since been identified in many organisms, including earthworms, mice, and humans, and are expected to exist in all eye-bearing organisms. Researchers discovered that inserting the control gene present in mice into fruit flies results in the formation of functional fruit fly eyes. This suggests that the control genes in mice and in fruit flies are interchangeable and hence evolved from a single, common ancestral gene. The same may be true of all of these control genes, which would argue convincingly against the multiple origin theory and call for a reevaluation of the evidence that seemed to support the theory. For example, the lack of correlation between eye structures and physical environments may have resulted from the advantage bestowed by eyes. The survival value of sight is perhaps so great that even variations in eyes that might be less than optimal for some individuals in a particular environment are sufficiently advantageous that they allow the individuals to survive and propagate the variation, thus facilitating the proliferation of variations in eyes even in the absence of an environmental difference.

india5_3-RC_4_22

The passage provides the strongest support for the inference that the author's attitude regarding the discovery of a control gene responsible for activating eye formation in fruit flies can be accurately described as

For biologists, the term "eye" describes any lightsensitive organ consisting of more than one cell. Although most animals have eyes, eye structures vary widely. The compound eyes of insects and other arthropods, for example, have an architecture strikingly different from the single-lens eyes of vertebrates and mollusks. Until recently, most biologists believed that all the different kinds of eyes evolved independently from as many as forty ancestral prototypes, and not from a single ancestral prototype eye. Traditional means of tracking the evolutionary development of eyes included examinations of internal eye structures, which tended to support the multiple origin theory despite some anomalies such as the resemblance between mammals' eyes and the eyes of the nautilus mollusk—animals that are not closely related. Proponents of the multiple origin theory dismissed such examples as textbook cases of evolutionary convergence: the idea that even strikingly different prototype eyes could evolve into kinds of eyes remarkably similar to each other. In support of their theory, these biologists point to the fact that different species inhabiting the same environment frequently have very different eye structures from one another. This lack of correlation between eye structures and physical environments has provided what is perhaps the strongest support for the multiple origin theory. Adherents of the theory argue that if eyes originated from a single ancestral prototype, then there should be similarity in the patterns of eye evolution in species that evolved under the same environmental conditions. The inability of biologists to identify such evolutionary patterns is arguably the primary reason for this theory's widespread acceptance. In 1993, however, a crucial link was discovered: a control gene that activates the many genes needed for complete eye formation in fruit flies. Analogues to this gene have since been identified in many organisms, including earthworms, mice, and humans, and are expected to exist in all eye-bearing organisms. Researchers discovered that inserting the control gene present in mice into fruit flies results in the formation of functional fruit fly eyes. This suggests that the control genes in mice and in fruit flies are interchangeable and hence evolved from a single, common ancestral gene. The same may be true of all of these control genes, which would argue convincingly against the multiple origin theory and call for a reevaluation of the evidence that seemed to support the theory. For example, the lack of correlation between eye structures and physical environments may have resulted from the advantage bestowed by eyes. The survival value of sight is perhaps so great that even variations in eyes that might be less than optimal for some individuals in a particular environment are sufficiently advantageous that they allow the individuals to survive and propagate the variation, thus facilitating the proliferation of variations in eyes even in the absence of an environmental difference.

india5_3-RC_4_23

ccording to the author, control genes have been found that

For biologists, the term "eye" describes any lightsensitive organ consisting of more than one cell. Although most animals have eyes, eye structures vary widely. The compound eyes of insects and other arthropods, for example, have an architecture strikingly different from the single-lens eyes of vertebrates and mollusks. Until recently, most biologists believed that all the different kinds of eyes evolved independently from as many as forty ancestral prototypes, and not from a single ancestral prototype eye. Traditional means of tracking the evolutionary development of eyes included examinations of internal eye structures, which tended to support the multiple origin theory despite some anomalies such as the resemblance between mammals' eyes and the eyes of the nautilus mollusk—animals that are not closely related. Proponents of the multiple origin theory dismissed such examples as textbook cases of evolutionary convergence: the idea that even strikingly different prototype eyes could evolve into kinds of eyes remarkably similar to each other. In support of their theory, these biologists point to the fact that different species inhabiting the same environment frequently have very different eye structures from one another. This lack of correlation between eye structures and physical environments has provided what is perhaps the strongest support for the multiple origin theory. Adherents of the theory argue that if eyes originated from a single ancestral prototype, then there should be similarity in the patterns of eye evolution in species that evolved under the same environmental conditions. The inability of biologists to identify such evolutionary patterns is arguably the primary reason for this theory's widespread acceptance. In 1993, however, a crucial link was discovered: a control gene that activates the many genes needed for complete eye formation in fruit flies. Analogues to this gene have since been identified in many organisms, including earthworms, mice, and humans, and are expected to exist in all eye-bearing organisms. Researchers discovered that inserting the control gene present in mice into fruit flies results in the formation of functional fruit fly eyes. This suggests that the control genes in mice and in fruit flies are interchangeable and hence evolved from a single, common ancestral gene. The same may be true of all of these control genes, which would argue convincingly against the multiple origin theory and call for a reevaluation of the evidence that seemed to support the theory. For example, the lack of correlation between eye structures and physical environments may have resulted from the advantage bestowed by eyes. The survival value of sight is perhaps so great that even variations in eyes that might be less than optimal for some individuals in a particular environment are sufficiently advantageous that they allow the individuals to survive and propagate the variation, thus facilitating the proliferation of variations in eyes even in the absence of an environmental difference.

india5_3-RC_4_24

Proponents of the multiple origin theory would likely regard the relationship between the development of human eyes and the development of the eyes of the nautilus mollusk as most analogous to which one of the following?