[prashant225]

Dear Vyom

In case of the 7'th question y cant the author be a britist scientist????????Cauz has gone into the technical implications.Only a scientist can do that right........

Originally Posted by vyomb

1. The primary purpose of the passage is to
(A) explain the difference between natural and man-made radiation
(B) arouse concern about the risks connected with exposure to radiation
(C) criticize the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
(D) advocate limiting the use of atomic weapons testing, since the fallout is extremely hazardous（B）
(E) publicize the results of British medical survey
2. Which of the following, according to the passage, is a list of three natural sources of radiation?
(A) Radioactive potassium in bone, strontium 90, uranium ore
(B) Carbon 14 in tissues, cosmic rays, X rays
(C) Cosmic rays, radioactive potassium in bones, radioactive carbon in tissues
(D) Plutonium, radioactive material in rock, strontium 90（C）
(E) X rays, carbon 14, plutonium
3. Which of the following does the author cite in support of the quotation from the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (lines 18-20)?
I. Strontium 90 and carbon 14 become incorporated into the body and deliver radiation for an entire lifetime.
II. An abnormally high percentage of patients with arthritis of the spine who were treated with X rays subsequently contracted cancer.
III. A high incidence of cancer appeared among children of mothers who had been given prenatal pelvic X rays.
(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) I and II only
(D) II and III only（D）
(E) I, II, and III
4. The passage contains information that answers which of the following questions?
(A) How many millirems of radiation from man-made sources is the average American exposed to each year?
(B) Is exposure to radiation linked to any other diseases besides cancer?
(C) How many types of radiation are there?
(D) What is the maximum level of radiation to which humans can safely be exposed?（E）
(E) Why is exposure to the fallout from weapons testing considered by some to be more hazardous than exposure to X rays?
5. According to the passage, some scientists believe that a dose of one rem of radiation continued over a period of generations would
(A) raise the strontium 90 levels in the body but otherwise have little effect
(B) relieve the acute suffering of those afflicted with arthritis of the spine without side effects
(C) have the effect of increasing by 1 percent the cases of serious genetic defects
(D) have little impact on the regulatory efforts of federal agencies（C）
(E) cause an additional 1,000 per million cases of cancer of the bone marrow or lymphatic system
6. It can be inferred from the last paragraph of the passage that the chairperson who resigned from the panel to develop a coordinated federal program for radiation regulation most likely did so because
(A) he or she disagreed with the findings of the Senate committee
(B) his or her agency could not obtain funding or manpower for implementation of existing laws
(C) he or she supported the position of the National Academy of Sciences committee and opposed regulation of radiation exposure
(D) he or she was disorganized and inconsistent in chairing the panel（E）
(E) regulatory efforts have been balked by disputes, confusion, and bureaucratic delays
7. The passage contains evidence suggesting that it was most likely written
(A) in 1958
(B) by a British scientist
(C) for the journal of the National Academy of Sciences
(D) by a lobbyist for the defense industry（E）
(E) in the late 1970s
8. The passage implies that each of the following statements about radiation has been disputed EXCEPT?
(A) Even small doses of radiation are likely to cause birth defects.
(B) Exposure to low-linear energy transfer presents only a minor risk.
(C) Many small doses of radiation are as harmful as a single large dose.
(D) Humans can tolerate a certain amount of radiation.（D）
(E) Exposure to radiation causes cancer.

[prashant225]

My answers for RC 53
1 D
2 B
3 A
4 E
5 C
6 B
7 E
8 E
9 D

cheers
prashant

[balrajbhardwaj]

MY TAKE

1. E
2. B
3. A
4. D
5. D
6. D
7. A
8. A
9. B

[balrajbhardwaj]

MY TAKE for #754

1. c
2. B
3. A
4. a
5. d
6. D
7. b
8. b

[utsavmamoria]

Maaru take on Rcp 53

1.E
2.D
3.E
4.B
5.A
6.D
7.A
8.B
9.E

[utsavmamoria]

Maaru take on Rcp 54

1.C
2.B
3.E
4.A
5.A
6.C
7.B
8.A

[mortyflint]

RcP53

b;e;c;a;a;d;a;b;e

cheers

[mortyflint]

RcP54

1. c
2. d
3. e
4. a
5. d
6. c
7. c
8. a

[abhrabumba]

Originally Posted by vyomb

Many readers assume that, as a neoclassical literary critic, Samuel Johnson would normally prefer the abstract, the formal, and the regulated to the concrete, the natural, and the spontaneous in a work of literature. Yet any close reading of Johnson’s criticism shows that Johnson is not blind to the importance of the immediate, vivid, specific detail in literature; rather, he would underscore the need for the telling rather than the merely accidental detail.
In other ways, too, Johnson’s critical method had much in common with that of the Romantics, with whom Johnson and, indeed, the entire neoclassical tradition are generally supposed to be in conflict. Johnson was well aware, for example, of the sterility of literary criticism that is legalistic or pedantic, as was the case with the worst products of the neoclassical school. His famous argument against the slavish following of the “three unities” of classical drama is a good example, as is his defense of the supposedly illegitimate “tragicomic” mode of Shakespeare’s latest plays. Note, in particular, the basis of that defense: “That this is a practice contrary to the rules of criticism,” Johnson wrote, “will be readily allowed; but there is always an appeal from criticism to nature.”
The sentiment thus expressed could easily be endorsed by any of the Romantics; the empiricism it exemplifies is vital quality of Johnson’s criticism, as is the willingness to jettison “laws” of criticism when to do so makes possible a more direct appeal to the emotions of the reader.
(B) reconciling conflicting views
(C) comparing two schools of thought
(D) challenging an assumption
(E) presenting new evidence in support of an established theory

Hey Vyom, Thanks would be an understatement for the excellent passage that you have posted. Had been desperately searching for something like this. Excellent effort buddy. Just keep the momentum going.
Thanks in advance.
Well my takes on this are:
1) a.
2) e.
3) b.
4) e.
5) a.
6) c.
7) a.
b.
9) c.
Don't know how many I lost. What are the answer anyways??

[abhrabumba]

Originally Posted by vyomb

The idea of building “New Towns” to absorb growth is frequently considered a cure-all for urban problems. It is erroneously assumed that if new residents can be diverted from
(B) exploring the implications of novel idea
(C) comparing and contrasting two manifestations of the same phenomenon
(D) proposing a radically new solution to an old problem
(E) summarizing recent research on a topic

My takes on this passage are:
1) c.
2) b.
3) e.
4) a.
5) a.
6) c.
7) b.
a.

Vyom, can u please post the answers for this and #53. And should be the ideal time spent on each of this??:grab: