Passage
(1)
[1] Positive thinking sounds useful on the surface. [2] But "positive thinking" is also a soft and fluffy term that is easy to dismiss. [3] But those views may be changing. [4] Research is beginning to reveal that positive thinking is about much more than just being happy or displaying an upbeat attitude. [5] Positive thoughts can actually create real value in your life and help you build skills that last much longer than a smile. [6] The impact of positive thinking on your work, your health, and your life is being studied by researchers, one of whom is Barbara Fredrickson. [7] Fredrickson is a positive psychology researcher at the University of North Carolina, and she published a landmark paper that provides surprising insights about positive thinking and its impact on your skills. [8] Her work is among the most referenced and cited in her field, and it is surprisingly useful in everyday life.
(2)
[9] What do negative thoughts do to your brain? [10] Let's say that you're walking through the forest and suddenly a tiger steps onto the path ahead of you. [11] When this happens, your brain registers a negative emotion ?in this case, fear. [12] Researchers have long known that negative emotions program your brain to do a specific action. [13] When that tiger crosses your path, for example, you run. [14] The rest of the world doesn't matter. [15] You are focused entirely on the tiger, the fear it creates, and how you can get away from it. [16] In other words, negative emotions narrow your mind and focus your thoughts. [17] At that same moment, you might have the option to climb a tree, pick up a leaf, or grab a stick ?but your brain ignores all of those options because they seem irrelevant when a tiger is standing in front of you.
(3)
[18] This is a useful instinct if you're trying to save life and limb, but in our modern society, we don't have to worry about stumbling across tigers in the wilderness. [19] The problem is that your brain is still programmed to respond to negative emotions in the same way ?by shutting off the outside world and limiting the options, you see around you. [20] For example, when you're in a fight with someone, your anger and emotion might consume you to the point where you can't think about anything else. [21] Or, when you are stressed out about everything you have to get done today, you may find it hard to actually start anything because you're paralyzed by how long your to-do list has become. [22] In each case, your brain closes off from the outside world and focuses on the negative emotions of fear, anger, and stress ? just like it did with the tiger. [23] Negative emotions prevent your brain from seeing the other options and choices that surround you. [24] It's your survival instinct.
(4)
[25] Now, let's compare this to what positive emotions do to your brain. [26] This is where Barbara Fredrickson returns to the story. [27] Fredrickson tested the impact of positive emotions on the brain by setting up a little experiment. [28] During this experiment, she divided her research subjects into five groups and showed each group different film clips. [29] The first two groups were shown clips that created positive emotions. [30] Group 1 saw images that created feelings of joy. [31] Group 2 saw images that created feelings of contentment. [32] Group 3 was the control group. [33] They saw images that were neutral and produced no significant emotion. [34] The last two groups were shown clips that created negative emotions. [35] Group 4 saw images that created feelings of fear. [36] Group 5 saw images that created feelings of anger. [37] Afterward, each participant was asked to imagine themselves in a situation where similar feelings would arise and to write down what they would do. [38] Each participant was handed a piece of paper with 20 blank lines that started with the phrase, "I would like to..." Participants who saw images of fear and anger wrote down the fewest responses. [39] Meanwhile, the participants who saw images of joy and contentment, wrote down a significantly higher number of actions that they would take, even when compared to the neutral group.
(5)
[40] In other words, when you are experiencing positive emotions like joy, contentment, and love, you will see more possibilities in your life. [41] These findings were among the first that suggested positive emotions broaden your sense of possibility and open your mind up to more options. [42] But that was just the beginning. [43] The benefits of positive emotions don't stop after a few minutes of good feelings subside. [44] In fact, the biggest benefit that positive emotions provide is an enhanced ability to build skills and develop resources for use later in life. [45] Let's consider a real-world example. [46] A child who runs around outside, swinging on branches and playing with friends, develops the ability to move athletically (physical skills), the ability to play with others and communicate with a team (social skills), and the ability to explore and examine the world around them (creative skills). [47] In this way, the positive emotions of play and joy prompt the child to build skills that are useful and valuable in everyday life. [48] These skills last much longer than the emotions that initiated them. [49] Years later, that foundation of athletic movement might develop into a scholarship as a college athlete or the communication skills may blossom into a job offer as a business manager. [50] The happiness that promoted the exploration and creation of new skills has long since ended, but the skills themselves live on. [51] Fredrickson refers to this as the "broaden and build" theory because positive emotions broaden your sense of possibilities and open your mind, which in turn allows you to build new skills and resources that can provide value in other areas of your life.
(6)
[52] All of this research begs the most important question of all: If positive thinking is so useful for developing valuable skills and appreciating the big picture of life, how do you actually get yourself to be positive? [53] Recent research by Fredrickson and her colleagues has revealed that people who meditate daily display more positive emotions that those who do not. [54] As expected, people who meditated also built valuable long-term skills. [55] For example, three months after the experiment was over, the people who meditated daily continued to display increased mindfulness, purpose in life, social support, and decreased illness symptoms.
(7)
[56] Secondly, a study published in the Journal of Research in Personality examined a group of 90 undergraduate students who were split into two groups. [57] The first group wrote about an intensely positive experience each day for three consecutive days. [58] The second group wrote about a control topic. [59] Three months later, the students who wrote about positive experiences had better mood levels, fewer visits to the health center, and experienced fewer illnesses.
(8)
[60] Positive thinking isn't just a soft and fluffy feel-good term. [61] Yes, it's great to simply "be happy," but those moments of happiness are also critical for opening your mind to explore and build the skills that become so valuable in other areas of your life. [62] Periods of positive emotion and unhindered exploration are when you see the possibilities for how your past experiences fit into your future life, when you begin to develop skills that blossom into useful talents later on, and when you spark the urge for further exploration and adventure.
Which one of the following individual represents the impact of negative emotions that is most analogous to as indicated in sentences 20-21 (For example... become)?
A. An employee under heavy deadlines to finish his work performs at his best under the pressure
B. A person who has been kidnapped by goons is not able to fight his kidnappers because the goons outnumber him and are in possession of arms
C. A person stuck in an elevator due to a sudden power failure panics and is unable to think of a logical way of escape -- pressing the `ALARM' button in the lift
D. A student whose exams are fast approaching is working extremely hard to score high because he wants to have a good and secure future
E. A cop who is investigating a murder case has been transferred to another branch without completing his investigation
Passage
(1)
[1] Positive thinking sounds useful on the surface. [2] But "positive thinking" is also a soft and fluffy term that is easy to dismiss. [3] But those views may be changing. [4] Research is beginning to reveal that positive thinking is about much more than just being happy or displaying an upbeat attitude. [5] Positive thoughts can actually create real value in your life and help you build skills that last much longer than a smile. [6] The impact of positive thinking on your work, your health, and your life is being studied by researchers, one of whom is Barbara Fredrickson. [7] Fredrickson is a positive psychology researcher at the University of North Carolina, and she published a landmark paper that provides surprising insights about positive thinking and its impact on your skills. [8] Her work is among the most referenced and cited in her field, and it is surprisingly useful in everyday life.
(2)
[9] What do negative thoughts do to your brain? [10] Let's say that you're walking through the forest and suddenly a tiger steps onto the path ahead of you. [11] When this happens, your brain registers a negative emotion ?in this case, fear. [12] Researchers have long known that negative emotions program your brain to do a specific action. [13] When that tiger crosses your path, for example, you run. [14] The rest of the world doesn't matter. [15] You are focused entirely on the tiger, the fear it creates, and how you can get away from it. [16] In other words, negative emotions narrow your mind and focus your thoughts. [17] At that same moment, you might have the option to climb a tree, pick up a leaf, or grab a stick ?but your brain ignores all of those options because they seem irrelevant when a tiger is standing in front of you.
(3)
[18] This is a useful instinct if you're trying to save life and limb, but in our modern society, we don't have to worry about stumbling across tigers in the wilderness. [19] The problem is that your brain is still programmed to respond to negative emotions in the same way ?by shutting off the outside world and limiting the options, you see around you. [20] For example, when you're in a fight with someone, your anger and emotion might consume you to the point where you can't think about anything else. [21] Or, when you are stressed out about everything you have to get done today, you may find it hard to actually start anything because you're paralyzed by how long your to-do list has become. [22] In each case, your brain closes off from the outside world and focuses on the negative emotions of fear, anger, and stress ? just like it did with the tiger. [23] Negative emotions prevent your brain from seeing the other options and choices that surround you. [24] It's your survival instinct.
(4)
[25] Now, let's compare this to what positive emotions do to your brain. [26] This is where Barbara Fredrickson returns to the story. [27] Fredrickson tested the impact of positive emotions on the brain by setting up a little experiment. [28] During this experiment, she divided her research subjects into five groups and showed each group different film clips. [29] The first two groups were shown clips that created positive emotions. [30] Group 1 saw images that created feelings of joy. [31] Group 2 saw images that created feelings of contentment. [32] Group 3 was the control group. [33] They saw images that were neutral and produced no significant emotion. [34] The last two groups were shown clips that created negative emotions. [35] Group 4 saw images that created feelings of fear. [36] Group 5 saw images that created feelings of anger. [37] Afterward, each participant was asked to imagine themselves in a situation where similar feelings would arise and to write down what they would do. [38] Each participant was handed a piece of paper with 20 blank lines that started with the phrase, "I would like to..." Participants who saw images of fear and anger wrote down the fewest responses. [39] Meanwhile, the participants who saw images of joy and contentment, wrote down a significantly higher number of actions that they would take, even when compared to the neutral group.
(5)
[40] In other words, when you are experiencing positive emotions like joy, contentment, and love, you will see more possibilities in your life. [41] These findings were among the first that suggested positive emotions broaden your sense of possibility and open your mind up to more options. [42] But that was just the beginning. [43] The benefits of positive emotions don't stop after a few minutes of good feelings subside. [44] In fact, the biggest benefit that positive emotions provide is an enhanced ability to build skills and develop resources for use later in life. [45] Let's consider a real-world example. [46] A child who runs around outside, swinging on branches and playing with friends, develops the ability to move athletically (physical skills), the ability to play with others and communicate with a team (social skills), and the ability to explore and examine the world around them (creative skills). [47] In this way, the positive emotions of play and joy prompt the child to build skills that are useful and valuable in everyday life. [48] These skills last much longer than the emotions that initiated them. [49] Years later, that foundation of athletic movement might develop into a scholarship as a college athlete or the communication skills may blossom into a job offer as a business manager. [50] The happiness that promoted the exploration and creation of new skills has long since ended, but the skills themselves live on. [51] Fredrickson refers to this as the "broaden and build" theory because positive emotions broaden your sense of possibilities and open your mind, which in turn allows you to build new skills and resources that can provide value in other areas of your life.
(6)
[52] All of this research begs the most important question of all: If positive thinking is so useful for developing valuable skills and appreciating the big picture of life, how do you actually get yourself to be positive? [53] Recent research by Fredrickson and her colleagues has revealed that people who meditate daily display more positive emotions that those who do not. [54] As expected, people who meditated also built valuable long-term skills. [55] For example, three months after the experiment was over, the people who meditated daily continued to display increased mindfulness, purpose in life, social support, and decreased illness symptoms.
(7)
[56] Secondly, a study published in the Journal of Research in Personality examined a group of 90 undergraduate students who were split into two groups. [57] The first group wrote about an intensely positive experience each day for three consecutive days. [58] The second group wrote about a control topic. [59] Three months later, the students who wrote about positive experiences had better mood levels, fewer visits to the health center, and experienced fewer illnesses.
(8) [60] Positive thinking isn't just a soft and fluffy feel-good term. [61] Yes, it's great to simply "be happy," but those moments of happiness are also critical for opening your mind to explore and build the skills that become so valuable in other areas of your life. [62] Periods of positive emotion and unhindered exploration are when you see the possibilities for how your past experiences fit into your future life, when you begin to develop skills that blossom into useful talents later on, and when you spark the urge for further exploration and adventure.
The author of the passage cites the example of the tiger in a forest to do which one of the following?
A. To elucidate that one does not have to worry about stumbling across tigers in the wilderness
B. To explain how negative emotions limit one's thought process
C. To prove that fear is a negative emotion
D. To show that stress is different from other emotions such as fear
E. To demonstrate that negative thoughts bring about a variety of emotions
By the time Bentham turned his interest to the subject, late in the eighteenth century, most components of modern evidence law had been assembled. Among common-law doctrines regarding evidence there were, however, principles that today are regarded as bizarre; thus, a well-established (but now abandoned) rule forbade the parties to a case from testifying. Well into the nineteenth century, even defendants in criminal cases were denied the right to testify to facts that would prove their innocence.
Although extreme in its irrationality, this proscription was in other respects quite typical of the law of evidence. Much of that law consisted of rules excluding relevant evidence, usually on some rational grounds. Hearsay evidence was generally excluded because absent persons could not be cross-examined. Yet such evidence was mechanically excluded even where out-of-court statements were both relevant and reliable, but the absent persons could not appear in court (for example, because they were dead).
The morass of evidentiary technicalities often made it unlikely that the truth would emerge in a judicial contest, no matter how expensive and protracted. Reform was frustrated both by the vested interests of lawyers and by the profession's reverence for tradition and precedent. Bentham's prescription was revolutionary: virtually all evidence tending to prove or disprove the issue in dispute should be admissible. Narrow exceptions were envisioned: instances in which the trouble or expense of presenting or considering proof outweighed its value, confessions to a Catholic priest, and a few other instances.
One difficulty with Bentham's nonexclusion principle is that some kinds of evidence are inherently unreliable or misleading. Such was the argument underlying the exclusions of interested-party testimony and hearsay evidence. Bentham argued that the character of evidence should be weighed by the jury: the alternative was to prefer ignorance to knowledge. Yet some evidence, although relevant, is actually more likely to produce a false jury verdict than a true one. To use a modern example, evidence of a defendant's past bank robberies is excluded, since the prejudicial character of the evidence substantially outweighs its value in helping the jury decide correctly. Further, in granting exclusions such as sacramental confessions, Bentham conceded that competing social interests or values might override the desire for relevant evidence. But then, why not protect conversations between social workers and their clients, or parents and children?
Despite concerns such as these, the approach underlying modem evidence law began to prevail soon after Bentham's death: relevant evidence should be admitted unless there are clear grounds of policy for excluding it. This clear-grounds proviso allows more exclusions than Bentham would have liked, but the main thrust of the current outlook is Bentham's own nonexclusion principle, demoted from a rule to a presumption.
The passage is primarily concerned with which one of the following?
A. suggesting the advantages and limitations of a legal reform
B. summarizing certain deficiencies of an outmoded legal system
C. justifying the apparent inadequacies of current evidence law
D. detailing objections to the nonexclusion principle
E. advocating reexamination of a proposal that has been dismissed by the legal profession
By the time Bentham turned his interest to the subject, late in the eighteenth century, most components of modern evidence law had been assembled. Among common-law doctrines regarding evidence there were, however, principles that today are regarded as bizarre; thus, a well-established (but now abandoned) rule forbade the parties to a case from testifying. Well into the nineteenth century, even defendants in criminal cases were denied the right to testify to facts that would prove their innocence.
Although extreme in its irrationality, this proscription was in other respects quite typical of the law of evidence. Much of that law consisted of rules excluding relevant evidence, usually on some rational grounds. Hearsay evidence was generally excluded because absent persons could not be cross-examined. Yet such evidence was mechanically excluded even where out-of-court statements were both relevant and reliable, but the absent persons could not appear in court (for example, because they were dead).
The morass of evidentiary technicalities often made it unlikely that the truth would emerge in a judicial contest, no matter how expensive and protracted. Reform was frustrated both by the vested interests of lawyers and by the profession's reverence for tradition and precedent. Bentham's prescription was revolutionary: virtually all evidence tending to prove or disprove the issue in dispute should be admissible. Narrow exceptions were envisioned: instances in which the trouble or expense of presenting or considering proof outweighed its value, confessions to a Catholic priest, and a few other instances.
One difficulty with Bentham's nonexclusion principle is that some kinds of evidence are inherently unreliable or misleading. Such was the argument underlying the exclusions of interested-party testimony and hearsay evidence. Bentham argued that the character of evidence should be weighed by the jury: the alternative was to prefer ignorance to knowledge. Yet some evidence, although relevant, is actually more likely to produce a false jury verdict than a true one. To use a modern example, evidence of a defendant's past bank robberies is excluded, since the prejudicial character of the evidence substantially outweighs its value in helping the jury decide correctly. Further, in granting exclusions such as sacramental confessions, Bentham conceded that competing social interests or values might override the desire for relevant evidence. But then, why not protect conversations between social workers and their clients, or parents and children?
Despite concerns such as these, the approach underlying modem evidence law began to prevail soon after Bentham's death: relevant evidence should be admitted unless there are clear grounds of policy for excluding it. This clear-grounds proviso allows more exclusions than Bentham would have liked, but the main thrust of the current outlook is Bentham's own nonexclusion principle, demoted from a rule to a presumption.
Which one of the following statements concerning the history of the law of evidence is supported by information in the passage?
A. Common-law rules of evidence have been replaced by modern principles.
B. Modern evidence law is less rigid than was eighteenth-century evidence law.
C. Some current laws regarding evidence do not derive from common-law doctrines.
D. The late eighteenth century marked the beginning of evidence law.
E. Prior to the eighteenth century, rules of evidence were not based on common law.
By the time Bentham turned his interest to the subject, late in the eighteenth century, most components of modern evidence law had been assembled. Among common-law doctrines regarding evidence there were, however, principles that today are regarded as bizarre; thus, a well-established (but now abandoned) rule forbade the parties to a case from testifying. Well into the nineteenth century, even defendants in criminal cases were denied the right to testify to facts that would prove their innocence.
Although extreme in its irrationality, this proscription was in other respects quite typical of the law of evidence. Much of that law consisted of rules excluding relevant evidence, usually on some rational grounds. Hearsay evidence was generally excluded because absent persons could not be cross-examined. Yet such evidence was mechanically excluded even where out-of-court statements were both relevant and reliable, but the absent persons could not appear in court (for example, because they were dead).
The morass of evidentiary technicalities often made it unlikely that the truth would emerge in a judicial contest, no matter how expensive and protracted. Reform was frustrated both by the vested interests of lawyers and by the profession's reverence for tradition and precedent. Bentham's prescription was revolutionary: virtually all evidence tending to prove or disprove the issue in dispute should be admissible. Narrow exceptions were envisioned: instances in which the trouble or expense of presenting or considering proof outweighed its value, confessions to a Catholic priest, and a few other instances.
One difficulty with Bentham's nonexclusion principle is that some kinds of evidence are inherently unreliable or misleading. Such was the argument underlying the exclusions of interested-party testimony and hearsay evidence. Bentham argued that the character of evidence should be weighed by the jury: the alternative was to prefer ignorance to knowledge. Yet some evidence, although relevant, is actually more likely to produce a false jury verdict than a true one. To use a modern example, evidence of a defendant's past bank robberies is excluded, since the prejudicial character of the evidence substantially outweighs its value in helping the jury decide correctly. Further, in granting exclusions such as sacramental confessions, Bentham conceded that competing social interests or values might override the desire for relevant evidence. But then, why not protect conversations between social workers and their clients, or parents and children?
Despite concerns such as these, the approach underlying modem evidence law began to prevail soon after Bentham's death: relevant evidence should be admitted unless there are clear grounds of policy for excluding it. This clear-grounds proviso allows more exclusions than Bentham would have liked, but the main thrust of the current outlook is Bentham's own nonexclusion principle, demoted from a rule to a presumption.
The author mentions "conversations between social workers and their clients" most probably in order to
A. suggest a situation in which application of the nonexclusion principle may be questionable
B. cite an example of objections that were raised to Bentham's proposed reform
C. illustrate the conflict between competing social interests
D. demonstrate the difference between social interests and social values
E. emphasize that Bentham's exceptions to the nonexclusion principle covered a wide range of situations
By the time Bentham turned his interest to the subject, late in the eighteenth century, most components of modern evidence law had been assembled. Among common-law doctrines regarding evidence there were, however, principles that today are regarded as bizarre; thus, a well-established (but now abandoned) rule forbade the parties to a case from testifying. Well into the nineteenth century, even defendants in criminal cases were denied the right to testify to facts that would prove their innocence.
Although extreme in its irrationality, this proscription was in other respects quite typical of the law of evidence. Much of that law consisted of rules excluding relevant evidence, usually on some rational grounds. Hearsay evidence was generally excluded because absent persons could not be cross-examined. Yet such evidence was mechanically excluded even where out-of-court statements were both relevant and reliable, but the absent persons could not appear in court (for example, because they were dead).
The morass of evidentiary technicalities often made it unlikely that the truth would emerge in a judicial contest, no matter how expensive and protracted. Reform was frustrated both by the vested interests of lawyers and by the profession's reverence for tradition and precedent. Bentham's prescription was revolutionary: virtually all evidence tending to prove or disprove the issue in dispute should be admissible. Narrow exceptions were envisioned: instances in which the trouble or expense of presenting or considering proof outweighed its value, confessions to a Catholic priest, and a few other instances.
One difficulty with Bentham's nonexclusion principle is that some kinds of evidence are inherently unreliable or misleading. Such was the argument underlying the exclusions of interested-party testimony and hearsay evidence. Bentham argued that the character of evidence should be weighed by the jury: the alternative was to prefer ignorance to knowledge. Yet some evidence, although relevant, is actually more likely to produce a false jury verdict than a true one. To use a modern example, evidence of a defendant's past bank robberies is excluded, since the prejudicial character of the evidence substantially outweighs its value in helping the jury decide correctly. Further, in granting exclusions such as sacramental confessions, Bentham conceded that competing social interests or values might override the desire for relevant evidence. But then, why not protect conversations between social workers and their clients, or parents and children?
Despite concerns such as these, the approach underlying modem evidence law began to prevail soon after Bentham's death: relevant evidence should be admitted unless there are clear grounds of policy for excluding it. This clear-grounds proviso allows more exclusions than Bentham would have liked, but the main thrust of the current outlook is Bentham's own nonexclusion principle, demoted from a rule to a presumption.
The author's attitude toward eighteenth-century lawyers can best be described as
A. Sympathetic
B. Critical
C. Respectful
D. Scornful
E. Ambivalent
By the time Bentham turned his interest to the subject, late in the eighteenth century, most components of modern evidence law had been assembled. Among common-law doctrines regarding evidence there were, however, principles that today are regarded as bizarre; thus, a well-established (but now abandoned) rule forbade the parties to a case from testifying. Well into the nineteenth century, even defendants in criminal cases were denied the right to testify to facts that would prove their innocence.
Although extreme in its irrationality, this proscription was in other respects quite typical of the law of evidence. Much of that law consisted of rules excluding relevant evidence, usually on some rational grounds. Hearsay evidence was generally excluded because absent persons could not be cross-examined. Yet such evidence was mechanically excluded even where out-of-court statements were both relevant and reliable, but the absent persons could not appear in court (for example, because they were dead).
The morass of evidentiary technicalities often made it unlikely that the truth would emerge in a judicial contest, no matter how expensive and protracted. Reform was frustrated both by the vested interests of lawyers and by the profession's reverence for tradition and precedent. Bentham's prescription was revolutionary: virtually all evidence tending to prove or disprove the issue in dispute should be admissible. Narrow exceptions were envisioned: instances in which the trouble or expense of presenting or considering proof outweighed its value, confessions to a Catholic priest, and a few other instances.
One difficulty with Bentham's nonexclusion principle is that some kinds of evidence are inherently unreliable or misleading. Such was the argument underlying the exclusions of interested-party testimony and hearsay evidence. Bentham argued that the character of evidence should be weighed by the jury: the alternative was to prefer ignorance to knowledge. Yet some evidence, although relevant, is actually more likely to produce a false jury verdict than a true one. To use a modern example, evidence of a defendant's past bank robberies is excluded, since the prejudicial character of the evidence substantially outweighs its value in helping the jury decide correctly. Further, in granting exclusions such as sacramental confessions, Bentham conceded that competing social interests or values might override the desire for relevant evidence. But then, why not protect conversations between social workers and their clients, or parents and children?
Despite concerns such as these, the approach underlying modem evidence law began to prevail soon after Bentham's death: relevant evidence should be admitted unless there are clear grounds of policy for excluding it. This clear-grounds proviso allows more exclusions than Bentham would have liked, but the main thrust of the current outlook is Bentham's own nonexclusion principle, demoted from a rule to a presumption.
Which one of the following is the main idea of the passage?
A. Bentham questioned the expediency of modern rules of legal evidence.
B. Bentham's proposed reform of rules of evidence was imperfect but beneficial.
C. Bentham's nonexclusion principle should be reexamined in the light of subsequent developments.
D. Rules of legal evidence inevitably entail imperfect mediations of conflicting values and constraints.
E. Despite their impairment of judicial efficiency, rules of legal evidence are resistant to change.
Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have-doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth's surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO, from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have predicted.
However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in future rangeland communities.
It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings' simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat {accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.
According to the passage, Billings' research addresses which one of the following questions?
A. Which kind of habitat will experience the greatest temperature increase in an atmosphere high in CO2?
B. How much will summer temperatures rise if levels of CO? double by the end of the twenty-first century?
C. Will enhanced plant growth necessarily decrease the rate of global warming that has been predicted by experts?
D. Would plant growth be differentially enhanced if atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were to double by the end of the twenty-first century?
E. Does peat decompose more rapidly in wet tundra grasslands than it does in other types of habitats when atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increase?
Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have-doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth's surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO, from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have predicted.
However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in future rangeland communities.
It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings' simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat {accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.
Which one of the following, if true, is LEAST consistent with the hypothesis mentioned in 2nd paragraph of the passage?
A. The roots of a certain tree species grow more rapidly when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, thus permitting the trees to expand into habitats formerly dominated by grasses with high photosynthetic efficiencies.
B. When grown in an atmosphere high in CO2, certain weeds with low photosynthetic efficiencies begin to thrive in cultivated farmlands formerly dominated by agricultural crops.
C. When trees of a species with a high photosynthetic efficiency and grasses of a species with a low photosynthetic efficiency were placed in an atmosphere high in CO2, the trees grew more quickly than the grasses.
D. When two different species of grass with equivalent photosynthetic efficiency were placed in an atmosphere high in CO2, one species grew much more rapidly and crowded the slower-growing species out of the growing area.
E. The number of leguminous plants decreased in an atmosphere rich in CO2, thus diminishing soil fertility and limiting the types of plant species that could thrive in certain habitats.
Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have-doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth's surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO, from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have predicted.
However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in future rangeland communities.
It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings' simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat {accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.
The passage supports which one of the following statements about peat in wet tundra grasslands?
A. More of it would decompose if temperatures rose four degrees Celsius.
B. It could help absorb CO2 from the atmosphere if temperatures rose four degrees Celsius.
C. It will not decompose unless temperatures rise four degrees Celsius.
D. It decomposes more quickly than peat found in regions at lower latitudes.
E. More of it accumulates in regions at lower latitudes.
Nowadays, the certification exams become more and more important and required by more and more enterprises when applying for a job. But how to prepare for the exam effectively? How to prepare for the exam in a short time with less efforts? How to get a ideal result and how to find the most reliable resources? Here on Vcedump.com, you will find all the answers. Vcedump.com provide not only LSAC exam questions, answers and explanations but also complete assistance on your exam preparation and certification application. If you are confused on your LSAT-TEST exam preparations and LSAC certification application, do not hesitate to visit our Vcedump.com to find your solutions here.