Prior to 1965 geologists assumed that the two giant rock plates meeting at the San Andreas Fault generate heat through friction as they grind past each other, but in 1965 Henyey found that temperatures in drill holes near the fault were not as elevated as had been expected. Some geologists wondered whether the absence of frictiongenerated heat could be explained by the kinds of rock composing the fault. Geologists’ pre-1965 assumptions concerning heat generated in the fault were based on calculations about common varieties of rocks, such as limestone and granite; but “weaker” materials, such as clays, had already been identified in samples retrieved from the fault zone. Under normal conditions, rocks composed of clay produce far less friction than do other rock types.

In 1992 Byerlee tested whether these materials would produce friction 10 to 15 kilometers below the Earth’s surface. Byerlee found that when clay samples were subjected to the thousands of atmospheres of pressure they would encounter deep inside the Earth, they produced as much friction as was produced by other rock types. The harder rocks push against each other, the hotter they become; in other words, pressure itself, not only the rocks’ properties, affects frictional heating. Geologists therefore wondered whether the friction between the plates was being reduced by pockets of pressurized water within the fault that push the plates away from each other

The passage suggests which of the following regarding Henyey’s findings about temperature in the San Andreas Fault?

Prior to 1965 geologists assumed that the two giant rock plates meeting at the San Andreas Fault generate heat through friction as they grind past each other, but in 1965 Henyey found that temperatures in drill holes near the fault were not as elevated as had been expected. Some geologists wondered whether the absence of frictiongenerated heat could be explained by the kinds of rock composing the fault. Geologists’ pre-1965 assumptions concerning heat generated in the fault were based on calculations about common varieties of rocks, such as limestone and granite; but “weaker” materials, such as clays, had already been identified in samples retrieved from the fault zone. Under normal conditions, rocks composed of clay produce far less friction than do other rock types.

In 1992 Byerlee tested whether these materials would produce friction 10 to 15 kilometers below the Earth’s surface. Byerlee found that when clay samples were subjected to the thousands of atmospheres of pressure they would encounter deep inside the Earth, they produced as much friction as was produced by other rock types. The harder rocks push against each other, the hotter they become; in other words, pressure itself, not only the rocks’ properties, affects frictional heating. Geologists therefore wondered whether the friction between the plates was being reduced by pockets of pressurized water within the fault that push the plates away from each other

The passage is primarily concerned with

Prior to 1965 geologists assumed that the two giant rock plates meeting at the San Andreas Fault generate heat through friction as they grind past each other, but in 1965 Henyey found that temperatures in drill holes near the fault were not as elevated as had been expected. Some geologists wondered whether the absence of frictiongenerated heat could be explained by the kinds of rock composing the fault. Geologists’ pre-1965 assumptions concerning heat generated in the fault were based on calculations about common varieties of rocks, such as limestone and granite; but “weaker” materials, such as clays, had already been identified in samples retrieved from the fault zone. Under normal conditions, rocks composed of clay produce far less friction than do other rock types.

In 1992 Byerlee tested whether these materials would produce friction 10 to 15 kilometers below the Earth’s surface. Byerlee found that when clay samples were subjected to the thousands of atmospheres of pressure they would encounter deep inside the Earth, they produced as much friction as was produced by other rock types. The harder rocks push against each other, the hotter they become; in other words, pressure itself, not only the rocks’ properties, affects frictional heating. Geologists therefore wondered whether the friction between the plates was being reduced by pockets of pressurized water within the fault that push the plates away from each other

The passage mostly agree that Henyey’s findings about temperature in the San Andreas Fault made the greatest contribution in that they

Prior to 1965 geologists assumed that the two giant rock plates meeting at the San Andreas Fault generate heat through friction as they grind past each other, but in 1965 Henyey found that temperatures in drill holes near the fault were not as elevated as had been expected. Some geologists wondered whether the absence of frictiongenerated heat could be explained by the kinds of rock composing the fault. Geologists’ pre-1965 assumptions concerning heat generated in the fault were based on calculations about common varieties of rocks, such as limestone and granite; but “weaker” materials, such as clays, had already been identified in samples retrieved from the fault zone. Under normal conditions, rocks composed of clay produce far less friction than do other rock types.

In 1992 Byerlee tested whether these materials would produce friction 10 to 15 kilometers below the Earth’s surface. Byerlee found that when clay samples were subjected to the thousands of atmospheres of pressure they would encounter deep inside the Earth, they produced as much friction as was produced by other rock types. The harder rocks push against each other, the hotter they become; in other words, pressure itself, not only the rocks’ properties, affects frictional heating. Geologists therefore wondered whether the friction between the plates was being reduced by pockets of pressurized water within the fault that push the plates away from each other

According to the passage, Henyey's findings in 1965 were significant because they

In the Sonoran Desert of northwestern Mexico and southern Arizona, the flowers of several species of columnar cacti- cardon, saguaro, and organ pipewere once exclusively pollinated at night by nectarfeeding bats, as their close relatives in arid tropical regions of southern Mexico still are. In these tropical regions, diurnal (daytime) visitors to columnar cactus flowers are ineffective pollinators because, by sunrise, the flowers' stigmas become unreceptive or the flowers close. Yet the flowers of the Sonoran Desert cacti have evolved to remain open after sunrise, allowing pollination by such diurnal visitors as bees and birds. Why have these cacti expanded their range of pollinators by remaining open and receptive in daylight?

This development at the northernmost range of columnar cacti may be due to a yearly variation in the abundance-and hence the reliability - of migratory nectar-feeding bats. Pollinators can be unreliable for several reasons. They can be dietary generalists whose fidelity to a particular species depends on the availability of alternative food sources. Or, they can be dietary specialists, but their abundance may vary widely from year to year,resulting in variable pollination of their preferred food species. Finally, they may be dietary specialists, but their abundance may be chronically low relative to the availability of flowers.

Recent data reveals that during spring in the Sonoran Desert, the nectar-feeding bats are specialists feeding on cardon, saguaro, and organpipe flowers. However, whereas cactus-flower abundance tends to be high during spring, bat population densities tend to be low except near maternity roosts. Moreover, in spring, diurnal cactus-pollinating birds are significantly more abundant in this region than are the nocturnal bats. Thus, with bats being unreliable cactus-flower pollinators, and daytime pollinators more abundant and therefore more reliable, selection favors the cactus flowers with traits that increase their range of pollinators. While data suggest that population densities of nectar-feeding bats are also low in tropical areas of southern Mexico, where bats are the exclusive pollinators of many species of columnar cacti, cactus-flower density and bat population density appear to be much more evenly balanced there: compared with the Sonoran Desert`s cardon and saguaro, columnar cacti in southern Mexico produce far fewer flowers per night. Accordingly, despite their low population density, bats are able to pollinate nearly 100 percent of the available flowers.

The primary purpose of the passage is to

In the Sonoran Desert of northwestern Mexico and southern Arizona, the flowers of several species of columnar cacti- cardon, saguaro, and organ pipewere once exclusively pollinated at night by nectarfeeding bats, as their close relatives in arid tropical regions of southern Mexico still are. In these tropical regions, diurnal (daytime) visitors to columnar cactus flowers are ineffective pollinators because, by sunrise, the flowers' stigmas become unreceptive or the flowers close. Yet the flowers of the Sonoran Desert cacti have evolved to remain open after sunrise, allowing pollination by such diurnal visitors as bees and birds. Why have these cacti expanded their range of pollinators by remaining open and receptive in daylight?

This development at the northernmost range of columnar cacti may be due to a yearly variation in the abundance-and hence the reliability - of migratory nectar-feeding bats. Pollinators can be unreliable for several reasons. They can be dietary generalists whose fidelity to a particular species depends on the availability of alternative food sources. Or, they can be dietary specialists, but their abundance may vary widely from year to year,resulting in variable pollination of their preferred food species. Finally, they may be dietary specialists, but their abundance may be chronically low relative to the availability of flowers.

Recent data reveals that during spring in the Sonoran Desert, the nectar-feeding bats are specialists feeding on cardon, saguaro, and organpipe flowers. However, whereas cactus-flower abundance tends to be high during spring, bat population densities tend to be low except near maternity roosts. Moreover, in spring, diurnal cactus-pollinating birds are significantly more abundant in this region than are the nocturnal bats. Thus, with bats being unreliable cactus-flower pollinators, and daytime pollinators more abundant and therefore more reliable, selection favors the cactus flowers with traits that increase their range of pollinators. While data suggest that population densities of nectar-feeding bats are also low in tropical areas of southern Mexico, where bats are the exclusive pollinators of many species of columnar cacti, cactus-flower density and bat population density appear to be much more evenly balanced there: compared with the Sonoran Desert`s cardon and saguaro, columnar cacti in southern Mexico produce far fewer flowers per night. Accordingly, despite their low population density, bats are able to pollinate nearly 100 percent of the available flowers.

According to the passage, which of the following types of nectar-feeding pollinators is likely to be an unreliable pollinator of a particular cactus flower?

In the Sonoran Desert of northwestern Mexico and southern Arizona, the flowers of several species of columnar cacti- cardon, saguaro, and organ pipewere once exclusively pollinated at night by nectarfeeding bats, as their close relatives in arid tropical regions of southern Mexico still are. In these tropical regions, diurnal (daytime) visitors to columnar cactus flowers are ineffective pollinators because, by sunrise, the flowers' stigmas become unreceptive or the flowers close. Yet the flowers of the Sonoran Desert cacti have evolved to remain open after sunrise, allowing pollination by such diurnal visitors as bees and birds. Why have these cacti expanded their range of pollinators by remaining open and receptive in daylight?

This development at the northernmost range of columnar cacti may be due to a yearly variation in the abundance-and hence the reliability - of migratory nectar-feeding bats. Pollinators can be unreliable for several reasons. They can be dietary generalists whose fidelity to a particular species depends on the availability of alternative food sources. Or, they can be dietary specialists, but their abundance may vary widely from year to year,resulting in variable pollination of their preferred food species. Finally, they may be dietary specialists, but their abundance may be chronically low relative to the availability of flowers.

Recent data reveals that during spring in the Sonoran Desert, the nectar-feeding bats are specialists feeding on cardon, saguaro, and organpipe flowers. However, whereas cactus-flower abundance tends to be high during spring, bat population densities tend to be low except near maternity roosts. Moreover, in spring, diurnal cactus-pollinating birds are significantly more abundant in this region than are the nocturnal bats. Thus, with bats being unreliable cactus-flower pollinators, and daytime pollinators more abundant and therefore more reliable, selection favors the cactus flowers with traits that increase their range of pollinators. While data suggest that population densities of nectar-feeding bats are also low in tropical areas of southern Mexico, where bats are the exclusive pollinators of many species of columnar cacti, cactus-flower density and bat population density appear to be much more evenly balanced there: compared with the Sonoran Desert`s cardon and saguaro, columnar cacti in southern Mexico produce far fewer flowers per night. Accordingly, despite their low population density, bats are able to pollinate nearly 100 percent of the available flowers.

According to the passage, present-day columnar cacti in the Sonoran Desert differ from their close relatives in southern Mexico in that the Sonoran cacti

Information is the essence of universe and means distinction between things. It is the very basic principle of physics that distinctions never disappear even though they might get scrambled or mixed away even after a seemingly irreversible change – say a magazine gets dissolved into pulp at a recycling plan, the information on the pages of the magazines will be re-organized and not eliminated and in theory the decay can be reversed; the pulp reconstructed into words and photographs. The only exception to this principle in physics is if the magazine were thrown into a black hole, a singular object in this regard, since nothing can emerge out of it after all. Even after Stephen Hawking showed in 1975 that black holes can radiate away matter and energy, the radiation seemed devoid of any structure, indicating that all information is lost in a black hole – a conclusion that has been hotly contested by physicists all over the world who argue that the entire structure of theoretical physics will disintegrate once you accept the notion that information can be lost, even if in a black hole.

Even though Hawking was not easily convinced, the physicists adopted a new theory called the holograph principle that states that when an object falls inside a black hole the stuff inside it may be lost but the objects information may be imprinted on the surface of black hole and with the right tools you may reconstruct the magazine from the black hole just as you would have reconstructed it from the pulp. This principle which may sound like an accounting trick has some serious implications if true. It implies that all information about 3 dimensional objects is stored in 2 dimensions and that there is a limit to how much information can be stored on a given surface area. While this theory plugs a key gap in Hawkins assertion its corollaries spring some interesting implications that may have a tough time standing up to the scrutiny.

According to the passage, prior to 1975 it was believed that black holes were unique because:

Information is the essence of universe and means distinction between things. It is the very basic principle of physics that distinctions never disappear even though they might get scrambled or mixed away even after a seemingly irreversible change – say a magazine gets dissolved into pulp at a recycling plan, the information on the pages of the magazines will be re-organized and not eliminated and in theory the decay can be reversed; the pulp reconstructed into words and photographs. The only exception to this principle in physics is if the magazine were thrown into a black hole, a singular object in this regard, since nothing can emerge out of it after all. Even after Stephen Hawking showed in 1975 that black holes can radiate away matter and energy, the radiation seemed devoid of any structure, indicating that all information is lost in a black hole – a conclusion that has been hotly contested by physicists all over the world who argue that the entire structure of theoretical physics will disintegrate once you accept the notion that information can be lost, even if in a black hole.

Even though Hawking was not easily convinced, the physicists adopted a new theory called the holograph principle that states that when an object falls inside a black hole the stuff inside it may be lost but the objects information may be imprinted on the surface of black hole and with the right tools you may reconstruct the magazine from the black hole just as you would have reconstructed it from the pulp. This principle which may sound like an accounting trick has some serious implications if true. It implies that all information about 3 dimensional objects is stored in 2 dimensions and that there is a limit to how much information can be stored on a given surface area. While this theory plugs a key gap in Hawkins assertion its corollaries spring some interesting implications that may have a tough time standing up to the scrutiny.

Why does the author imply that the holographic principle “may sound like an accounting trick”?

Information is the essence of universe and means distinction between things. It is the very basic principle of physics that distinctions never disappear even though they might get scrambled or mixed away even after a seemingly irreversible change – say a magazine gets dissolved into pulp at a recycling plan, the information on the pages of the magazines will be re-organized and not eliminated and in theory the decay can be reversed; the pulp reconstructed into words and photographs. The only exception to this principle in physics is if the magazine were thrown into a black hole, a singular object in this regard, since nothing can emerge out of it after all. Even after Stephen Hawking showed in 1975 that black holes can radiate away matter and energy, the radiation seemed devoid of any structure, indicating that all information is lost in a black hole – a conclusion that has been hotly contested by physicists all over the world who argue that the entire structure of theoretical physics will disintegrate once you accept the notion that information can be lost, even if in a black hole.

Even though Hawking was not easily convinced, the physicists adopted a new theory called the holograph principle that states that when an object falls inside a black hole the stuff inside it may be lost but the objects information may be imprinted on the surface of black hole and with the right tools you may reconstruct the magazine from the black hole just as you would have reconstructed it from the pulp. This principle which may sound like an accounting trick has some serious implications if true. It implies that all information about 3 dimensional objects is stored in 2 dimensions and that there is a limit to how much information can be stored on a given surface area. While this theory plugs a key gap in Hawkins assertion its corollaries spring some interesting implications that may have a tough time standing up to the scrutiny.

Which of the following best describes author’s feelings regarding Holograph principle?

Information is the essence of universe and means distinction between things. It is the very basic principle of physics that distinctions never disappear even though they might get scrambled or mixed away even after a seemingly irreversible change – say a magazine gets dissolved into pulp at a recycling plan, the information on the pages of the magazines will be re-organized and not eliminated and in theory the decay can be reversed; the pulp reconstructed into words and photographs. The only exception to this principle in physics is if the magazine were thrown into a black hole, a singular object in this regard, since nothing can emerge out of it after all. Even after Stephen Hawking showed in 1975 that black holes can radiate away matter and energy, the radiation seemed devoid of any structure, indicating that all information is lost in a black hole – a conclusion that has been hotly contested by physicists all over the world who argue that the entire structure of theoretical physics will disintegrate once you accept the notion that information can be lost, even if in a black hole.

Even though Hawking was not easily convinced, the physicists adopted a new theory called the holograph principle that states that when an object falls inside a black hole the stuff inside it may be lost but the objects information may be imprinted on the surface of black hole and with the right tools you may reconstruct the magazine from the black hole just as you would have reconstructed it from the pulp. This principle which may sound like an accounting trick has some serious implications if true. It implies that all information about 3 dimensional objects is stored in 2 dimensions and that there is a limit to how much information can be stored on a given surface area. While this theory plugs a key gap in Hawkins assertion its corollaries spring some interesting implications that may have a tough time standing up to the scrutiny.

According to the passage, the hotly contested debate about black holes was: