Science 1 (P1-P2-New)

In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by identifying precursory phenomena (those that occur a few days before large quakes but not otherwise) turned their attention to changes in seismic waves that had been detected prior to earthquakes. An explanation for such changes was offered by “dilatancy theory,” based on a well-known phenomenon observed in rocks in the laboratory: as stress builds, microfractures in rock close, decreasing the rock’s volume. But as stress continues to increase, the rock begins to crack and expand in volume, allowing groundwater to seep in, weakening the rock. According to this theory, such effects could lead to several precursory phenomena in the field, including a change in the velocity of seismic waves, and an increase in small, nearby tremors.

Researchers initially reported success in identifying these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses of their data proved disheartening. Seismic waves with unusual velocities were recorded before some earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor tremors, these foreshocks indicate nothing about the magnitude of an impending quake and are  indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes.

In the 1980s, some researchers turned their efforts from short-term to long-term prediction. Noting that earthquakes tend to occur repeatedly in  certain regions, Lindh and Baker attempted to identify patterns of recurrence, or earthquake cycles, on which to base predictions. In a study of earthquake-prone sites along the San Andreas Fault, they determined that quakes occurred at intervals of approximately 22  years near one site and concluded that there was a 95 percent probability of an earthquake in that area by 1992. The earthquake did not occur within the time frame predicted, however.

Evidence against the kind of regular  earthquake cycles that Lindh and Baker tried to establish has come from a relatively new field, paleoseismology. Paleoseismologists have unearthed and dated geological features such as fault scarps that were caused by  earthquakes thousands of years ago. They have determined that the average interval between ten earthquakes that took place at one site along the San Andreas Fault in the past two millennia was 132 years, but individual intervals ranged greatly,  from 44 to 332 years.

The passage is primarily concerned with

In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by identifying precursory phenomena (those that occur a few days before large quakes but not otherwise) turned their attention to changes in seismic waves that had been detected prior to earthquakes. An explanation for such changes was offered by “dilatancy theory,” based on a well-known phenomenon observed in rocks in the laboratory: as stress builds, microfractures in rock close, decreasing the rock’s volume. But as stress continues to increase, the rock begins to crack and expand in volume, allowing groundwater to seep in, weakening the rock. According to this theory, such effects could lead to several precursory phenomena in the field, including a change in the velocity of seismic waves, and an increase in small, nearby tremors.

Researchers initially reported success in identifying these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses of their data proved disheartening. Seismic waves with unusual velocities were recorded before some earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor tremors, these foreshocks indicate nothing about the magnitude of an impending quake and are  indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes.

In the 1980s, some researchers turned their efforts from short-term to long-term prediction. Noting that earthquakes tend to occur repeatedly in  certain regions, Lindh and Baker attempted to identify patterns of recurrence, or earthquake cycles, on which to base predictions. In a study of earthquake-prone sites along the San Andreas Fault, they determined that quakes occurred at intervals of approximately 22  years near one site and concluded that there was a 95 percent probability of an earthquake in that area by 1992. The earthquake did not occur within the time frame predicted, however.

Evidence against the kind of regular  earthquake cycles that Lindh and Baker tried to establish has come from a relatively new field, paleoseismology. Paleoseismologists have unearthed and dated geological features such as fault scarps that were caused by  earthquakes thousands of years ago. They have determined that the average interval between ten earthquakes that took place at one site along the San Andreas Fault in the past two millennia was 132 years, but individual intervals ranged greatly,  from 44 to 332 years.

According to the passage, laboratory evidence concerning the effects of stress on rocks might help account for

In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by identifying precursory phenomena (those that occur a few days before large quakes but not otherwise) turned their attention to changes in seismic waves that had been detected prior to earthquakes. An explanation for such changes was offered by “dilatancy theory,” based on a well-known phenomenon observed in rocks in the laboratory: as stress builds, microfractures in rock close, decreasing the rock’s volume. But as stress continues to increase, the rock begins to crack and expand in volume, allowing groundwater to seep in, weakening the rock. According to this theory, such effects could lead to several precursory phenomena in the field, including a change in the velocity of seismic waves, and an increase in small, nearby tremors.

Researchers initially reported success in identifying these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses of their data proved disheartening. Seismic waves with unusual velocities were recorded before some earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor tremors, these foreshocks indicate nothing about the magnitude of an impending quake and are  indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes.

In the 1980s, some researchers turned their efforts from short-term to long-term prediction. Noting that earthquakes tend to occur repeatedly in  certain regions, Lindh and Baker attempted to identify patterns of recurrence, or earthquake cycles, on which to base predictions. In a study of earthquake-prone sites along the San Andreas Fault, they determined that quakes occurred at intervals of approximately 22  years near one site and concluded that there was a 95 percent probability of an earthquake in that area by 1992. The earthquake did not occur within the time frame predicted, however.

Evidence against the kind of regular  earthquake cycles that Lindh and Baker tried to establish has come from a relatively new field, paleoseismology. Paleoseismologists have unearthed and dated geological features such as fault scarps that were caused by  earthquakes thousands of years ago. They have determined that the average interval between ten earthquakes that took place at one site along the San Andreas Fault in the past two millennia was 132 years, but individual intervals ranged greatly,  from 44 to 332 years.

It can be inferred from the passage that one problem with using precursory phenomena to predict earthquakes is that minor tremors

CIn 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by identifying precursory phenomena (those that occur a few days before large quakes but not otherwise) turned their attention to changes in seismic waves that had been detected prior to earthquakes. An explanation for such changes was offered by “dilatancy theory,” based on a well-known phenomenon observed in rocks in the laboratory: as stress builds, microfractures in rock close, decreasing the rock’s volume. But as stress continues to increase, the rock begins to crack and expand in volume, allowing groundwater to seep in, weakening the rock. According to this theory, such effects could lead to several precursory phenomena in the field, including a change in the velocity of seismic waves, and an increase in small, nearby tremors.

Researchers initially reported success in identifying these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses of their data proved disheartening. Seismic waves with unusual velocities were recorded before some earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor tremors, these foreshocks indicate nothing about the magnitude of an impending quake and are  indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes.

In the 1980s, some researchers turned their efforts from short-term to long-term prediction. Noting that earthquakes tend to occur repeatedly in  certain regions, Lindh and Baker attempted to identify patterns of recurrence, or earthquake cycles, on which to base predictions. In a study of earthquake-prone sites along the San Andreas Fault, they determined that quakes occurred at intervals of approximately 22  years near one site and concluded that there was a 95 percent probability of an earthquake in that area by 1992. The earthquake did not occur within the time frame predicted, however.

Evidence against the kind of regular  earthquake cycles that Lindh and Baker tried to establish has come from a relatively new field, paleoseismology. Paleoseismologists have unearthed and dated geological features such as fault scarps that were caused by  earthquakes thousands of years ago. They have determined that the average interval between ten earthquakes that took place at one site along the San Andreas Fault in the past two millennia was 132 years, but individual intervals ranged greatly,  from 44 to 332 years.

According to the passage, some researchers based their research about long-term earthquake prediction on which of the following facts?

In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by identifying precursory phenomena (those that occur a few days before large quakes but not otherwise) turned their attention to changes in seismic waves that had been detected prior to earthquakes. An explanation for such changes was offered by “dilatancy theory,” based on a well-known phenomenon observed in rocks in the laboratory: as stress builds, microfractures in rock close, decreasing the rock’s volume. But as stress continues to increase, the rock begins to crack and expand in volume, allowing groundwater to seep in, weakening the rock. According to this theory, such effects could lead to several precursory phenomena in the field, including a change in the velocity of seismic waves, and an increase in small, nearby tremors.

Researchers initially reported success in identifying these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses of their data proved disheartening. Seismic waves with unusual velocities were recorded before some earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor tremors, these foreshocks indicate nothing about the magnitude of an impending quake and are  indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes.

In the 1980s, some researchers turned their efforts from short-term to long-term prediction. Noting that earthquakes tend to occur repeatedly in  certain regions, Lindh and Baker attempted to identify patterns of recurrence, or earthquake cycles, on which to base predictions. In a study of earthquake-prone sites along the San Andreas Fault, they determined that quakes occurred at intervals of approximately 22  years near one site and concluded that there was a 95 percent probability of an earthquake in that area by 1992. The earthquake did not occur within the time frame predicted, however.

Evidence against the kind of regular  earthquake cycles that Lindh and Baker tried to establish has come from a relatively new field, paleoseismology. Paleoseismologists have unearthed and dated geological features such as fault scarps that were caused by  earthquakes thousands of years ago. They have determined that the average interval between ten earthquakes that took place at one site along the San Andreas Fault in the past two millennia was 132 years, but individual intervals ranged greatly,  from 44 to 332 years.

The passage suggests which of the following about the paleoseismologists’ findings described in lines 42–50?

In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by identifying precursory phenomena (those that occur a few days before large quakes but not otherwise) turned their attention to changes in seismic waves that had been detected prior to earthquakes. An explanation for such changes was offered by “dilatancy theory,” based on a well-known phenomenon observed in rocks in the laboratory: as stress builds, microfractures in rock close, decreasing the rock’s volume. But as stress continues to increase, the rock begins to crack and expand in volume, allowing groundwater to seep in, weakening the rock. According to this theory, such effects could lead to several precursory phenomena in the field, including a change in the velocity of seismic waves, and an increase in small, nearby tremors.

Researchers initially reported success in identifying these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses of their data proved disheartening. Seismic waves with unusual velocities were recorded before some earthquakes, but while the historical record confirms that most large earthquakes are preceded by minor tremors, these foreshocks indicate nothing about the magnitude of an impending quake and are  indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes.

In the 1980s, some researchers turned their efforts from short-term to long-term prediction. Noting that earthquakes tend to occur repeatedly in  certain regions, Lindh and Baker attempted to identify patterns of recurrence, or earthquake cycles, on which to base predictions. In a study of earthquake-prone sites along the San Andreas Fault, they determined that quakes occurred at intervals of approximately 22  years near one site and concluded that there was a 95 percent probability of an earthquake in that area by 1992. The earthquake did not occur within the time frame predicted, however.

Evidence against the kind of regular  earthquake cycles that Lindh and Baker tried to establish has come from a relatively new field, paleoseismology. Paleoseismologists have unearthed and dated geological features such as fault scarps that were caused by  earthquakes thousands of years ago. They have determined that the average interval between ten earthquakes that took place at one site along the San Andreas Fault in the past two millennia was 132 years, but individual intervals ranged greatly,  from 44 to 332 years.

The author implies which of the following about the ability of the researchers mentioned in line 18 to predict earthquakes?

Suppose we were in a spaceship in free fall, where objects are weightless, and wanted to know a small solid object’s mass. We could not simply balance that object against another of known weight, as we would on Earth. The unknown mass could be determined, however, by placing the object on a spring scale and swinging the scale in a circle at the end of a string. The scale would measure the tension in the string, which would depend on both the speed of revolution and the mass of the object. The tension would be greater, the greater the mass or the greater the speed of revolution. From the measured tension and speed of whirling, we could determine the object’s mass.

Astronomers use an analogous procedure to “weigh” double-star systems. The speed with which the two stars in a double-star system circle one another depends on the gravitational force between them, which holds the system together. This attractive force, analogous to the tension in the string, is proportional to the stars’ combined mass, according to Newton’s law of gravitation. By observing the time required for the stars to circle each other (the period) and measuring the distance between them, we can deduce the restraining force, and hence the masses.

It can be inferred from the passage that the two procedures described in the passage have which of the following in common?

Suppose we were in a spaceship in free fall, where objects are weightless, and wanted to know a small solid object’s mass. We could not simply balance that object against another of known weight, as we would on Earth. The unknown mass could be determined, however, by placing the object on a spring scale and swinging the scale in a circle at the end of a string. The scale would measure the tension in the string, which would depend on both the speed of revolution and the mass of the object. The tension would be greater, the greater the mass or the greater the speed of revolution. From the measured tension and speed of whirling, we could determine the object’s mass.

Astronomers use an analogous procedure to “weigh” double-star systems. The speed with which the two stars in a double-star system circle one another depends on the gravitational force between them, which holds the system together. This attractive force, analogous to the tension in the string, is proportional to the stars’ combined mass, according to Newton’s law of gravitation. By observing the time required for the stars to circle each other (the period) and measuring the distance between them, we can deduce the restraining force, and hence the masses.

According to the passage, the tension in the string mentioned in highlight text is analogous to which of the following aspects of a double-star system?

Suppose we were in a spaceship in free fall, where objects are weightless, and wanted to know a small solid object’s mass. We could not simply balance that object against another of known weight, as we would on Earth. The unknown mass could be determined, however, by placing the object on a spring scale and swinging the scale in a circle at the end of a string. The scale would measure the tension in the string, which would depend on both the speed of revolution and the mass of the object. The tension would be greater, the greater the mass or the greater the speed of revolution. From the measured tension and speed of whirling, we could determine the object’s mass.

Astronomers use an analogous procedure to “weigh” double-star systems. The speed with which the two stars in a double-star system circle one another depends on the gravitational force between them, which holds the system together. This attractive force, analogous to the tension in the string, is proportional to the stars’ combined mass, according to Newton’s law of gravitation. By observing the time required for the stars to circle each other (the period) and measuring the distance between them, we can deduce the restraining force, and hence the masses.

Which of the following best describes the relationship between the first and the second paragraph of the passage?

Suppose we were in a spaceship in free fall, where objects are weightless, and wanted to know a small solid object’s mass. We could not simply balance that object against another of known weight, as we would on Earth. The unknown mass could be determined, however, by placing the object on a spring scale and swinging the scale in a circle at the end of a string. The scale would measure the tension in the string, which would depend on both the speed of revolution and the mass of the object. The tension would be greater, the greater the mass or the greater the speed of revolution. From the measured tension and speed of whirling, we could determine the object’s mass.

Astronomers use an analogous procedure to “weigh” double-star systems. The speed with which the two stars in a double-star system circle one another depends on the gravitational force between them, which holds the system together. This attractive force, analogous to the tension in the string, is proportional to the stars’ combined mass, according to Newton’s law of gravitation. By observing the time required for the stars to circle each other (the period) and measuring the distance between them, we can deduce the restraining force, and hence the masses

The author of the passage mentions observations regarding the period of a doublestar system as being useful for determining

Suppose we were in a spaceship in free fall, where objects are weightless, and wanted to know a small solid object’s mass. We could not simply balance that object against another of known weight, as we would on Earth. The unknown mass could be determined, however, by placing the object on a spring scale and swinging the scale in a circle at the end of a string. The scale would measure the tension in the string, which would depend on both the speed of revolution and the mass of the object. The tension would be greater, the greater the mass or the greater the speed of revolution. From the measured tension and speed of whirling, we could determine the object’s mass.

Astronomers use an analogous procedure to “weigh” double-star systems. The speed with which the two stars in a double-star system circle one another depends on the gravitational force between them, which holds the system together. This attractive force, analogous to the tension in the string, is proportional to the stars’ combined mass, according to Newton’s law of gravitation. By observing the time required for the stars to circle each other (the period) and measuring the distance between them, we can deduce the restraining force, and hence the masses

The primary purpose of the passage is to

Globally, about a third of the food produced for human consumption goes to waste, implying that a third of the water, land use, energy and financial resources that go into producing it are also squandered. Yet people often think of food as environmentally benign because it is biodegradable, while label food packaging as a wasteful use of resources leading to nothing but more pollution, despite the reality that the energy that goes into packaging makes up a mere 10% of the total energy that goes into producing, transporting, storing and preparing food. Needless to say, their view ignores the negative impact of food production, supply, and consumption, and the benefits possible from the right kind of food packaging.

Indeed the dislike for food packaging is not all baseless. There is a lot of bad and wasteful packaging out there. But any assessment of its impact on the environment must take into account the benefits one can derive from packaging in the shape of reduced food waste that can be realized by protecting and dispensing food properly. For instance, two percent of the milk produced in the US goes bad on supermarket shelves before it can be purchased. This dairy waste can be avoided with packaging technology such as Tetra Pak that saves milk from spoiling, even without refrigeration. However, environmentally aware consumers tend to dislike Tetra Pak material because they think it cannot be recycled. The truth, however, is that it can be recycled, but the process is rather complicated. Irrespective of the recycling aspect, Tetra Pak is a good environmental bet because it can extend the shelf life of milk up to nine months, reducing the need for refrigeration — and reducing the amount of milk that goes bad on retail shelves. Clearly, the environmental benefit of the food-protection technology outweighs the negative impact of the packaging itself.

The author is primarily concerned with

Globally, about a third of the food produced for human consumption goes to waste, implying that a third of the water, land use, energy and financial resources that go into producing it are also squandered. Yet people often think of food as environmentally benign because it is biodegradable, while label food packaging as a wasteful use of resources leading to nothing but more pollution, despite the reality that the energy that goes into packaging makes up a mere 10% of the total energy that goes into producing, transporting, storing and preparing food. Needless to say, their view ignores the negative impact of food production, supply, and consumption, and the benefits possible from the right kind of food packaging.

Indeed the dislike for food packaging is not all baseless. There is a lot of bad and wasteful packaging out there. But any assessment of its impact on the environment must take into account the benefits one can derive from packaging in the shape of reduced food waste that can be realized by protecting and dispensing food properly. For instance, two percent of the milk produced in the US goes bad on supermarket shelves before it can be purchased. This dairy waste can be avoided with packaging technology such as Tetra Pak that saves milk from spoiling, even without refrigeration. However, environmentally aware consumers tend to dislike Tetra Pak material because they think it cannot be recycled. The truth, however, is that it can be recycled, but the process is rather complicated. Irrespective of the recycling aspect, Tetra Pak is a good environmental bet because it can extend the shelf life of milk up to nine months, reducing the need for refrigeration — and reducing the amount of milk that goes bad on retail shelves. Clearly, the environmental benefit of the food-protection technology outweighs the negative impact of the packaging itself.

Which of the following statement can be derived from the passage?

Globally, about a third of the food produced for human consumption goes to waste, implying that a third of the water, land use, energy and financial resources that go into producing it are also squandered. Yet people often think of food as environmentally benign because it is biodegradable, while label food packaging as a wasteful use of resources leading to nothing but more pollution, despite the reality that the energy that goes into packaging makes up a mere 10% of the total energy that goes into producing, transporting, storing and preparing food. Needless to say, their view ignores the negative impact of food production, supply, and consumption, and the benefits possible from the right kind of food packaging.

Indeed the dislike for food packaging is not all baseless. There is a lot of bad and wasteful packaging out there. But any assessment of its impact on the environment must take into account the benefits one can derive from packaging in the shape of reduced food waste that can be realized by protecting and dispensing food properly. For instance, two percent of the milk produced in the US goes bad on supermarket shelves before it can be purchased. This dairy waste can be avoided with packaging technology such as Tetra Pak that saves milk from spoiling, even without refrigeration. However, environmentally aware consumers tend to dislike Tetra Pak material because they think it cannot be recycled. The truth, however, is that it can be recycled, but the process is rather complicated. Irrespective of the recycling aspect, Tetra Pak is a good environmental bet because it can extend the shelf life of milk up to nine months, reducing the need for refrigeration — and reducing the amount of milk that goes bad on retail shelves. Clearly, the environmental benefit of the food-protection technology outweighs the negative impact of the packaging itself.

Which of the following is the function of the first paragraph in the passage?