BackALL MODULES
CAT 2025 Lesson : Verbal: Jan '25 to Feb '25 - CAT RCs - 27th Jan 2025
The passage below is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
[CAT 2019 Slot 2]
War, natural disasters and climate change are destroying some of the world's most precious cultural sites. Google is trying to help preserve these archaeological wonders by allowing users access to 3D images of these treasures through its site.
But the project is raising questions about Google's motivations and about who should own the digital copyrights. Some critics call it a form of "digital colonialism."
When it comes to archaeological treasures, the losses have been mounting. ISIS blew up parts of the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria and an earthquake hit Bagan, an ancient city in Myanmar, damaging dozens of temples, in 2016. In the past, all archaeologists and historians had for restoration and research were photos, drawings, remnants and intuition.
But that's changing. Before the earthquake at Bagan, many of the temples on the site were scanned. . . . [These] scans . . . are on Google's Arts & Culture site. The digital renditions allow viewers to virtually wander the halls of the temple, look up-close at paintings and turn the building over, to look up at its chambers. . . . [Google Arts & Culture] works with museums and other nonprofits . . . to put high-quality images online.
The images of the temples in Bagan are part of a collaboration with CyArk, a nonprofit that creates the 3D scanning of historic sites. . . . Google . . . says [it] doesn't make money off this website, but it fits in with Google's mission to make the world's information available and useful.
Critics say the collaboration could be an attempt by a large corporation to wrap itself in the sheen of culture. Ethan Watrall, an archaeologist, professor at Michigan State University and a member of the Society for American Archaeology, says he's not comfortable with the arrangement between CyArk and Google. . . . Watrall says this project is just a way for Google to promote Google. "They want to make this material accessible so people will browse it and be filled with wonder by it," he says. "But at its core, it's all about advertisements and driving traffic." Watrall says these images belong on the site of a museum or educational institution, where there is serious scholarship and a very different mission. . . .
[There's] another issue for some archaeologists and art historians. CyArk owns the copyrights of the scans — not the countries where these sites are located. That means the countries need CyArk's permission to use these images for commercial purposes.
Erin Thompson, a professor of art crime at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, says it's the latest example of a Western nation appropriating a foreign culture, a centuries-long battle. . . . CyArk says it copyrights the scans so no one can use them in an inappropriate way. The company says it works closely with authorities during the process, even training local people to help. But critics like Thompson are not persuaded. . . . She would prefer the scans to be owned by the countries and people where these sites are located.
1) Of the following arguments, which one is LEAST likely to be used by the companies that digitally scan cultural sites?
(1) It provides images free of cost to all users.
(2) It allows a large corporation to project itself as a protector of culture.
(3) It helps preserve precious images in case the sites are damaged or destroyed.
(4) It enables people who cannot physically visit these sites to experience them.
2) By “digital colonialism”, critics of the CyArk–Google project are referring to the fact that:
(1) CyArk and Google have been scanning images without copyright permission from host countries.
(2) CyArk and Google have not shared the details of digitisation with the host countries.
(3) the scanning process can damage delicate frescos and statues at the sites.
(4) countries where the scanned sites are located do not own the scan copyrights.
3) Which of the following, if true, would most strongly invalidate Dr. Watrall’s objections?
(1) CyArk uploads its scanned images of archaeological sites onto museum websites only.
(2) Google takes down advertisements on its website hosting CyArk’s scanned images.
(3) CyArk does not own the copyright on scanned images of archaeological sites.
(4) There is a ban on CyArk scanning archeological sites located in other countries.
4) In Dr. Thompson’s view, CyArk owning the copyright of its digital scans of archaeological sites is akin to:
(1) the seizing of ancient Egyptian artefacts by a Western museum.
(2) digital platforms capturing users’ data for market research.
(3) tourists uploading photos of monuments onto social media.
(4) the illegal downloading of content from the internet.
5) Based on his views mentioned in the passage, one could best characterise Dr. Watrall as being:
(1) opposed to the use of digital technology in archaeological and cultural sites in developing countries.
(2) critical about the links between a non-profit and a commercial tech platform for distributing archaeological images.
(3) dismissive of laypeople’s access to specialist images of archaeological and cultural sites.
(4) uneasy about the marketing of archaeological images for commercial use by firms such as Google and CyArk.
The passage below is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
[CAT 2018 Slot 1]
The only thing worse than being lied to is not knowing you’re being lied to. It’s true that plastic pollution is a huge problem, of planetary proportions. And it’s true we could all do more to reduce our plastic footprint. The lie is that blame for the plastic problem is wasteful consumers and that changing our individual habits will fix it.
Recycling plastic is to saving the Earth what hammering a nail is to halting a falling skyscraper. You struggle to find a place to do it and feel pleased when you succeed. But your effort is wholly inadequate and distracts from the real problem of why the building is collapsing in the first place. The real problem is that single-use plastic— the very idea of producing plastic items like grocery bags, which we use for an average of 12 minutes but can persist in the environment for half a millennium—is an incredibly reckless abuse of technology. Encouraging individuals to recycle more will never solve the problem of a massive production of single-use plastic that should have been avoided in the first place.
As an ecologist and evolutionary biologist, I have had a disturbing window into the accumulating literature on the hazards of plastic pollution. Scientists have long recognized that plastics biodegrade slowly, if at all, and pose multiple threats to wildlife through entanglement and consumption. More recent reports highlight dangers posed by absorption of toxic chemicals in the water and by plastic odors that mimic some species’ natural food. Plastics also accumulate up the food chain, and studies now show that we are likely ingesting it ourselves in seafood....
Beginning in the 1950s, big beverage companies like Coca-Cola and Anheuser-Busch, along with Phillip Morris and others, formed a non-profit called Keep America Beautiful. Its mission is/was to educate and encourage environmental stewardship in the public.... At face value, these efforts seem benevolent, but they obscure the real problem, which is the role that corporate polluters play in the plastic problem. This clever misdirection has led journalist and author Heather Rogers to describe Keep America Beautiful as the first corporate greenwashing front, as it has helped shift the public focus to consumer recycling behavior and actively thwarted legislation that would increase extended producer responsibility for waste management.... [T]he greatest success of Keep America Beautiful has been to shift the onus of environmental responsibility onto the public while simultaneously becoming a trusted name in the environmental movement....
So what can we do to make responsible use of plastic a reality? First: reject the lie. Litterbugs are not responsible for the global ecological disaster of plastic. Humans can only function to the best of their abilities, given time, mental bandwidth and systemic constraints. Our huge problem with plastic is the result of a permissive legal framework that has allowed the uncontrolled rise of plastic pollution, despite clear evidence of the harm it causes to local communities and the world’s oceans. Recycling is also too hard in most parts of the U.S. and lacks the proper incentives to make it work well.
1) In the second paragraph, the phrase “what hammering a nail is to halting a falling skyscraper” means:
(1) encouraging the responsible production of plastics by firms.
(2) focusing on single-use plastic bags to reduce the plastics footprint.
(3) focusing on consumer behaviour to tackle the problem of plastics pollution.
(4) relying on emerging technologies to mitigate the ill-effects of plastic pollution.
2) It can be inferred that the author considers the Keep America Beautiful organisation:
(1) an important step in sensitising producers to the need to tackle plastics pollution.
(2) a "greenwash" because it was a benevolent attempt to improve public recycling habits.
(3) an innovative example of a collaborative corporate social responsibility initiative.
(4) a sham as it diverted attention away from the role of corporates in plastics pollution.
3) Which of the following interventions would the author most strongly support:
(1) completely banning all single-use plastic bags.
(2) passing regulations targeted at producers that generate plastic products.
(3) recycling all plastic debris in the seabed.
(4) having all consumers change their plastic consumption habits.
4) The author lists all of the following as negative effects of the use of plastics EXCEPT the:
(1) adverse impacts on the digestive systems of animals exposed to plastic.
(2) poisonous chemicals released into the water and food we consume.
(3) slow pace of degradation or non-degradation of plastics in the environment.
(4) air pollution caused during the process of recycling plastics.
5) In the first paragraph, the author uses “lie” to refer to the:
(1) fact that people do not know they have been lied to.
(2) understatement of the enormity of the plastics pollution problem.
(3) understatement of the effects of recycling plastics.
(4) blame assigned to consumers for indiscriminate use of plastics.
[CAT 2019 Slot 2]
War, natural disasters and climate change are destroying some of the world's most precious cultural sites. Google is trying to help preserve these archaeological wonders by allowing users access to 3D images of these treasures through its site.
But the project is raising questions about Google's motivations and about who should own the digital copyrights. Some critics call it a form of "digital colonialism."
When it comes to archaeological treasures, the losses have been mounting. ISIS blew up parts of the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria and an earthquake hit Bagan, an ancient city in Myanmar, damaging dozens of temples, in 2016. In the past, all archaeologists and historians had for restoration and research were photos, drawings, remnants and intuition.
But that's changing. Before the earthquake at Bagan, many of the temples on the site were scanned. . . . [These] scans . . . are on Google's Arts & Culture site. The digital renditions allow viewers to virtually wander the halls of the temple, look up-close at paintings and turn the building over, to look up at its chambers. . . . [Google Arts & Culture] works with museums and other nonprofits . . . to put high-quality images online.
The images of the temples in Bagan are part of a collaboration with CyArk, a nonprofit that creates the 3D scanning of historic sites. . . . Google . . . says [it] doesn't make money off this website, but it fits in with Google's mission to make the world's information available and useful.
Critics say the collaboration could be an attempt by a large corporation to wrap itself in the sheen of culture. Ethan Watrall, an archaeologist, professor at Michigan State University and a member of the Society for American Archaeology, says he's not comfortable with the arrangement between CyArk and Google. . . . Watrall says this project is just a way for Google to promote Google. "They want to make this material accessible so people will browse it and be filled with wonder by it," he says. "But at its core, it's all about advertisements and driving traffic." Watrall says these images belong on the site of a museum or educational institution, where there is serious scholarship and a very different mission. . . .
[There's] another issue for some archaeologists and art historians. CyArk owns the copyrights of the scans — not the countries where these sites are located. That means the countries need CyArk's permission to use these images for commercial purposes.
Erin Thompson, a professor of art crime at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, says it's the latest example of a Western nation appropriating a foreign culture, a centuries-long battle. . . . CyArk says it copyrights the scans so no one can use them in an inappropriate way. The company says it works closely with authorities during the process, even training local people to help. But critics like Thompson are not persuaded. . . . She would prefer the scans to be owned by the countries and people where these sites are located.
1) Of the following arguments, which one is LEAST likely to be used by the companies that digitally scan cultural sites?
(1) It provides images free of cost to all users.
(2) It allows a large corporation to project itself as a protector of culture.
(3) It helps preserve precious images in case the sites are damaged or destroyed.
(4) It enables people who cannot physically visit these sites to experience them.
2) By “digital colonialism”, critics of the CyArk–Google project are referring to the fact that:
(1) CyArk and Google have been scanning images without copyright permission from host countries.
(2) CyArk and Google have not shared the details of digitisation with the host countries.
(3) the scanning process can damage delicate frescos and statues at the sites.
(4) countries where the scanned sites are located do not own the scan copyrights.
3) Which of the following, if true, would most strongly invalidate Dr. Watrall’s objections?
(1) CyArk uploads its scanned images of archaeological sites onto museum websites only.
(2) Google takes down advertisements on its website hosting CyArk’s scanned images.
(3) CyArk does not own the copyright on scanned images of archaeological sites.
(4) There is a ban on CyArk scanning archeological sites located in other countries.
4) In Dr. Thompson’s view, CyArk owning the copyright of its digital scans of archaeological sites is akin to:
(1) the seizing of ancient Egyptian artefacts by a Western museum.
(2) digital platforms capturing users’ data for market research.
(3) tourists uploading photos of monuments onto social media.
(4) the illegal downloading of content from the internet.
5) Based on his views mentioned in the passage, one could best characterise Dr. Watrall as being:
(1) opposed to the use of digital technology in archaeological and cultural sites in developing countries.
(2) critical about the links between a non-profit and a commercial tech platform for distributing archaeological images.
(3) dismissive of laypeople’s access to specialist images of archaeological and cultural sites.
(4) uneasy about the marketing of archaeological images for commercial use by firms such as Google and CyArk.
The passage below is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
[CAT 2018 Slot 1]
The only thing worse than being lied to is not knowing you’re being lied to. It’s true that plastic pollution is a huge problem, of planetary proportions. And it’s true we could all do more to reduce our plastic footprint. The lie is that blame for the plastic problem is wasteful consumers and that changing our individual habits will fix it.
Recycling plastic is to saving the Earth what hammering a nail is to halting a falling skyscraper. You struggle to find a place to do it and feel pleased when you succeed. But your effort is wholly inadequate and distracts from the real problem of why the building is collapsing in the first place. The real problem is that single-use plastic— the very idea of producing plastic items like grocery bags, which we use for an average of 12 minutes but can persist in the environment for half a millennium—is an incredibly reckless abuse of technology. Encouraging individuals to recycle more will never solve the problem of a massive production of single-use plastic that should have been avoided in the first place.
As an ecologist and evolutionary biologist, I have had a disturbing window into the accumulating literature on the hazards of plastic pollution. Scientists have long recognized that plastics biodegrade slowly, if at all, and pose multiple threats to wildlife through entanglement and consumption. More recent reports highlight dangers posed by absorption of toxic chemicals in the water and by plastic odors that mimic some species’ natural food. Plastics also accumulate up the food chain, and studies now show that we are likely ingesting it ourselves in seafood....
Beginning in the 1950s, big beverage companies like Coca-Cola and Anheuser-Busch, along with Phillip Morris and others, formed a non-profit called Keep America Beautiful. Its mission is/was to educate and encourage environmental stewardship in the public.... At face value, these efforts seem benevolent, but they obscure the real problem, which is the role that corporate polluters play in the plastic problem. This clever misdirection has led journalist and author Heather Rogers to describe Keep America Beautiful as the first corporate greenwashing front, as it has helped shift the public focus to consumer recycling behavior and actively thwarted legislation that would increase extended producer responsibility for waste management.... [T]he greatest success of Keep America Beautiful has been to shift the onus of environmental responsibility onto the public while simultaneously becoming a trusted name in the environmental movement....
So what can we do to make responsible use of plastic a reality? First: reject the lie. Litterbugs are not responsible for the global ecological disaster of plastic. Humans can only function to the best of their abilities, given time, mental bandwidth and systemic constraints. Our huge problem with plastic is the result of a permissive legal framework that has allowed the uncontrolled rise of plastic pollution, despite clear evidence of the harm it causes to local communities and the world’s oceans. Recycling is also too hard in most parts of the U.S. and lacks the proper incentives to make it work well.
1) In the second paragraph, the phrase “what hammering a nail is to halting a falling skyscraper” means:
(1) encouraging the responsible production of plastics by firms.
(2) focusing on single-use plastic bags to reduce the plastics footprint.
(3) focusing on consumer behaviour to tackle the problem of plastics pollution.
(4) relying on emerging technologies to mitigate the ill-effects of plastic pollution.
2) It can be inferred that the author considers the Keep America Beautiful organisation:
(1) an important step in sensitising producers to the need to tackle plastics pollution.
(2) a "greenwash" because it was a benevolent attempt to improve public recycling habits.
(3) an innovative example of a collaborative corporate social responsibility initiative.
(4) a sham as it diverted attention away from the role of corporates in plastics pollution.
3) Which of the following interventions would the author most strongly support:
(1) completely banning all single-use plastic bags.
(2) passing regulations targeted at producers that generate plastic products.
(3) recycling all plastic debris in the seabed.
(4) having all consumers change their plastic consumption habits.
4) The author lists all of the following as negative effects of the use of plastics EXCEPT the:
(1) adverse impacts on the digestive systems of animals exposed to plastic.
(2) poisonous chemicals released into the water and food we consume.
(3) slow pace of degradation or non-degradation of plastics in the environment.
(4) air pollution caused during the process of recycling plastics.
5) In the first paragraph, the author uses “lie” to refer to the:
(1) fact that people do not know they have been lied to.
(2) understatement of the enormity of the plastics pollution problem.
(3) understatement of the effects of recycling plastics.
(4) blame assigned to consumers for indiscriminate use of plastics.
Want to read the full content
Unlock this content & enjoy all the features of the platform
Subscribe Now
