111 / 927
Give people power and discretion, and whether they are grand viziers or border guards, some will use their
position to enrich themselves. The problem can be big enough to hold back a country's development. For
most people in the world, though, the worry is not that corruption may slow down their country's GDP
growth. It is that their daily lives are pervaded by endless hassles, big and small. And for all the evidence that
some cultures suffer endemic corruption while others are relatively clean, attitudes towards corruption, and
even the language describing bribery, is remarkably similar around the world.
In a testament to most people's basic decency, bribe-takers and bribe-payers have developed an elaborate
theater of dissimulation. This is not just to avoid detection. Even in countries where corruption is so common
as to be unremarkable and on the prosecutor and even when the transaction happens far from snooping eyes bribe is almost always dressed up as some other kind of exchange.Though most of the world is plagued by corruption, even serial offenders try to conceal it.
One manifestation of this is linguistic. Surprisingly few people say: "You are going to have to pay me if you
want to get that done." Instead, they use a wide variety of euphemisms. One type is quasi-official
terminology. The term widely used at border crossings is "expediting fee". For a euphemism it is surprisingly
accurate: paying it will keep your bags, and perhaps your contraband, from being dumped onto a floor and
sifted through at a leisurely pace. (A related term, used in India, is "speed money": paying it can get essential
business permits issued considerably faster.)
The second type of euphemism dresses up a dodgy payment as a friendly favor done by the bribe-payer. There
is plenty of creative scopes. Nigerian policemen are known to ask for "a little something for the weekend".
Mexican traffic police will suggest that you buy them are fresco, a soft drink, as will Angolan and Mozambican
petty officials, who call it a gazebo in Portuguese.
Double meaning can help soothe the awkwardness of bribe-paying. Baksheesh, originally a Persian word now
found in many countries of the Middle East, can mean "tip", "alms" and "bribe". In Kenya a machine-gun wielding
guard suggested to a terrified Canadian aid worker: "Perhaps you would like to discuss this over
chai?" The young Canadian was relieved: the difficulty could be resolved with some chai, which means both "tea" and "bribe".
Along with the obscurantist language, bribe-taking culture around the world often involves the avoidance of
physically handing the money from one person to another. One obvious reason is to avoid detection, which
is why bribes are known as "envelopes" in countries from China to Greece. But avoidance of a direct handover
is common even where there is no chance of detection.There will always be some officials who will take money right from a bribe payer's hands, but most seem to prefer to find some way to hide the money from view.
Rich Westerners may not think of their societies as plagued by corruption. But the definition of bribery clearly
differs from person to person. A New Yorker might pity the third-world businessman who must pay bribes
just to keep his shop open. But the same New Yorker would not think twice about slipping the $50 to sneak
into a nice restaurant without a reservation. Poor people the world over are most infuriated by the casual
corruption of the elites rather than by the underpaid, "tip"-seeking soldier or functionary. Thus there is no single cultural or social factor that inclines a society towards corruption, but economic factors play a big part.Most clearly, poverty and bribery go together.
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.7/7: What could be the meaning of the word 'obscurantist' as inferred from the passage?
AClear
BUnclear
CNasty
DPolite
Answer: Option B
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
112 / 927
He motive force that has carried the psychoanalytic movement to a voluminous wave of popular attention and created for it considerable following among those discontent with traditional methods and attitudes, is the frank direction of the psychological instruments of exploration to the insistent and intimate problems of human relations. However false or however true its conclusions, however weak or strong its arguments, however effective or defective or even pernicious its practice, its mission is broadly humanistic. Psychological enlightenment is presented as a program of salvation. By no other appeal could the service of psychology have become so glorified. The therapeutic promise of psychoanalysis came as the most novel, most ambitious, most releasing of the long procession of curative systems that mark the history of mental healing. To the contemporary trends in psychology, psychoanalysis actually offered a rebuke, a challenge, a supplement, though it appeared to ignore them. With the practical purpose of applied psychology directed to human efficiency it had no direct relation and thus no quarrel. The solution of behaviorism, likewise bidding for popular approval by reducing adjustment to a program of conditioning, it inevitably found alien and irrelevant, as the behaviorist in reciprocity found psychoanalytic doctrine mystical, fantastic, assumptive, remote. Even to the cognate formulations of mental hygiene, as likewise in its contacts with related fields of psychology, psychoanalysis made no conciliatory advances. Towards psychiatry, its nearest of kin, it took an unfriendly position, quite too plainly implying a disdain for an unprogressive relative. These estrangements affected its relations throughout the domain of mind and its ills; but they came to head in the practice. From the outset in the days of struggle, when it had but a sparse and scattered discipleship, to the present position of prominence, Freudianism went its own way, for the most part neglected by academic psychology. Of dreams, lapses and neuroses, orthodox psychology had little say. The second reason for the impression made by psychoanalysis when once launched against the tide of academic resistance was its recognition of depth psychology, so much closer to human motivation, so much more intimate and direct than the analysis of mental factors. Most persons in trouble would be grateful for relief without critical examination of the theory behind the practice that helped them. Anyone at all acquainted with the ebb and flow of cures – cures that cure cures that fail – need not be told that the scientific basis of the system is often the least important factor. Many of these systems arise empirically within a practice, which by trial, seems to give results. This is not the case in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis belongs to the typical groups of therapies in which practice is entirely a derivative of theory. Here the pertinent psychological principle reads:"create a belief in the theory, and the fact will create themselves".
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.1/8: The distinctive feature of psychoanalysis is that
AIt provided the laymen with a scientific basis to the theories of psychology.
BIt blasted the popular theory that the conscious mind could be aptly linked the tip of an iceberg.
CIt provided effective means for the cure of mental disorders.
DIt rendered existing trends in psychology defunct.
Answer: Option C
Explanation:Psychoanalysis has been referred to a curative system for mental healing.
Workspace
113 / 927
He motive force that has carried the psychoanalytic movement to a voluminous wave of popular attention and created for it considerable following among those discontent with traditional methods and attitudes, is the frank direction of the psychological instruments of exploration to the insistent and intimate problems of human relations. However false or however true its conclusions, however weak or strong its arguments, however effective or defective or even pernicious its practice, its mission is broadly humanistic. Psychological enlightenment is presented as a program of salvation. By no other appeal could the service of psychology have become so glorified. The therapeutic promise of psychoanalysis came as the most novel, most ambitious, most releasing of the long procession of curative systems that mark the history of mental healing. To the contemporary trends in psychology, psychoanalysis actually offered a rebuke, a challenge, a supplement, though it appeared to ignore them. With the practical purpose of applied psychology directed to human efficiency it had no direct relation and thus no quarrel. The solution of behaviorism, likewise bidding for popular approval by reducing adjustment to a program of conditioning, it inevitably found alien and irrelevant, as the behaviorist in reciprocity found psychoanalytic doctrine mystical, fantastic, assumptive, remote. Even to the cognate formulations of mental hygiene, as likewise in its contacts with related fields of psychology, psychoanalysis made no conciliatory advances. Towards psychiatry, its nearest of kin, it took an unfriendly position, quite too plainly implying a disdain for an unprogressive relative. These estrangements affected its relations throughout the domain of mind and its ills; but they came to head in the practice. From the outset in the days of struggle, when it had but a sparse and scattered discipleship, to the present position of prominence, Freudianism went its own way, for the most part neglected by academic psychology. Of dreams, lapses and neuroses, orthodox psychology had little say. The second reason for the impression made by psychoanalysis when once launched against the tide of academic resistance was its recognition of depth psychology, so much closer to human motivation, so much more intimate and direct than the analysis of mental factors. Most persons in trouble would be grateful for relief without critical examination of the theory behind the practice that helped them. Anyone at all acquainted with the ebb and flow of cures – cures that cure cures that fail – need not be told that the scientific basis of the system is often the least important factor. Many of these systems arise empirically within a practice, which by trial, seems to give results. This is not the case in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis belongs to the typical groups of therapies in which practice is entirely a derivative of theory. Here the pertinent psychological principle reads:"create a belief in the theory, and the fact will create themselves".
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.2/8: Freudian psychoanalysis was ignored by academic psychology because of which of the following?
AIts theories were not substantiated by practical evidence.
BIt probed too deep into the human mind thereby divesting it of its legitimate privacy.
CIt did not have a large following.
DIt was pre-occupied with unfamiliar concepts such as dreams and the subconscious mind.
Answer: Option D
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
114 / 927
He motive force that has carried the psychoanalytic movement to a voluminous wave of popular attention and created for it considerable following among those discontent with traditional methods and attitudes, is the frank direction of the psychological instruments of exploration to the insistent and intimate problems of human relations. However false or however true its conclusions, however weak or strong its arguments, however effective or defective or even pernicious its practice, its mission is broadly humanistic. Psychological enlightenment is presented as a program of salvation. By no other appeal could the service of psychology have become so glorified. The therapeutic promise of psychoanalysis came as the most novel, most ambitious, most releasing of the long procession of curative systems that mark the history of mental healing. To the contemporary trends in psychology, psychoanalysis actually offered a rebuke, a challenge, a supplement, though it appeared to ignore them. With the practical purpose of applied psychology directed to human efficiency it had no direct relation and thus no quarrel. The solution of behaviorism, likewise bidding for popular approval by reducing adjustment to a program of conditioning, it inevitably found alien and irrelevant, as the behaviorist in reciprocity found psychoanalytic doctrine mystical, fantastic, assumptive, remote. Even to the cognate formulations of mental hygiene, as likewise in its contacts with related fields of psychology, psychoanalysis made no conciliatory advances. Towards psychiatry, its nearest of kin, it took an unfriendly position, quite too plainly implying a disdain for an unprogressive relative. These estrangements affected its relations throughout the domain of mind and its ills; but they came to head in the practice. From the outset in the days of struggle, when it had but a sparse and scattered discipleship, to the present position of prominence, Freudianism went its own way, for the most part neglected by academic psychology. Of dreams, lapses and neuroses, orthodox psychology had little say. The second reason for the impression made by psychoanalysis when once launched against the tide of academic resistance was its recognition of depth psychology, so much closer to human motivation, so much more intimate and direct than the analysis of mental factors. Most persons in trouble would be grateful for relief without critical examination of the theory behind the practice that helped them. Anyone at all acquainted with the ebb and flow of cures – cures that cure cures that fail – need not be told that the scientific basis of the system is often the least important factor. Many of these systems arise empirically within a practice, which by trial, seems to give results. This is not the case in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis belongs to the typical groups of therapies in which practice is entirely a derivative of theory. Here the pertinent psychological principle reads:"create a belief in the theory, and the fact will create themselves".
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.3/8: The distinction between behaviorism and psychoanalysis that is heightened here is which of the following?
ABehaviorism is wide in scope; psychoanalysis more restricted.
BBehaviorism are more tolerant in their outlook; psychoanalysis more dogmatic.
CBehaviorism traces all action to conditioning by habit; psychoanalysis to the depths of the human mind.
DBehaviorism are more circumspect and deliberate in their propagation of theory; psychoanalysis jump to conclusion impetuously.
Answer: Option C
Explanation:Behaviorism bid for approval by reducing adjustment to a program of conditioning while psychoanalysis analysed mental factors.
Workspace
115 / 927
He motive force that has carried the psychoanalytic movement to a voluminous wave of popular attention and created for it considerable following among those discontent with traditional methods and attitudes, is the frank direction of the psychological instruments of exploration to the insistent and intimate problems of human relations. However false or however true its conclusions, however weak or strong its arguments, however effective or defective or even pernicious its practice, its mission is broadly humanistic. Psychological enlightenment is presented as a program of salvation. By no other appeal could the service of psychology have become so glorified. The therapeutic promise of psychoanalysis came as the most novel, most ambitious, most releasing of the long procession of curative systems that mark the history of mental healing. To the contemporary trends in psychology, psychoanalysis actually offered a rebuke, a challenge, a supplement, though it appeared to ignore them. With the practical purpose of applied psychology directed to human efficiency it had no direct relation and thus no quarrel. The solution of behaviorism, likewise bidding for popular approval by reducing adjustment to a program of conditioning, it inevitably found alien and irrelevant, as the behaviorist in reciprocity found psychoanalytic doctrine mystical, fantastic, assumptive, remote. Even to the cognate formulations of mental hygiene, as likewise in its contacts with related fields of psychology, psychoanalysis made no conciliatory advances. Towards psychiatry, its nearest of kin, it took an unfriendly position, quite too plainly implying a disdain for an unprogressive relative. These estrangements affected its relations throughout the domain of mind and its ills; but they came to head in the practice. From the outset in the days of struggle, when it had but a sparse and scattered discipleship, to the present position of prominence, Freudianism went its own way, for the most part neglected by academic psychology. Of dreams, lapses and neuroses, orthodox psychology had little say. The second reason for the impression made by psychoanalysis when once launched against the tide of academic resistance was its recognition of depth psychology, so much closer to human motivation, so much more intimate and direct than the analysis of mental factors. Most persons in trouble would be grateful for relief without critical examination of the theory behind the practice that helped them. Anyone at all acquainted with the ebb and flow of cures – cures that cure cures that fail – need not be told that the scientific basis of the system is often the least important factor. Many of these systems arise empirically within a practice, which by trial, seems to give results. This is not the case in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis belongs to the typical groups of therapies in which practice is entirely a derivative of theory. Here the pertinent psychological principle reads:"create a belief in the theory, and the fact will create themselves".
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.4/8: The statement which is refuted by the passage is this:
AThe popularity enjoyed by psychoanalysis is partly due to the disenchantment with traditional methods of psychology.
BPsychoanalysis wooed people dissatisfied with other branches of psychology to swell their ranks.
CPsychoanalysis were pioneers in the realm of analysis of the subconscious mind.
DPsychoanalysis alienated allied branches of psychology.
Answer: Option B
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
116 / 927
He motive force that has carried the psychoanalytic movement to a voluminous wave of popular attention and created for it considerable following among those discontent with traditional methods and attitudes, is the frank direction of the psychological instruments of exploration to the insistent and intimate problems of human relations. However false or however true its conclusions, however weak or strong its arguments, however effective or defective or even pernicious its practice, its mission is broadly humanistic. Psychological enlightenment is presented as a program of salvation. By no other appeal could the service of psychology have become so glorified. The therapeutic promise of psychoanalysis came as the most novel, most ambitious, most releasing of the long procession of curative systems that mark the history of mental healing. To the contemporary trends in psychology, psychoanalysis actually offered a rebuke, a challenge, a supplement, though it appeared to ignore them. With the practical purpose of applied psychology directed to human efficiency it had no direct relation and thus no quarrel. The solution of behaviorism, likewise bidding for popular approval by reducing adjustment to a program of conditioning, it inevitably found alien and irrelevant, as the behaviorist in reciprocity found psychoanalytic doctrine mystical, fantastic, assumptive, remote. Even to the cognate formulations of mental hygiene, as likewise in its contacts with related fields of psychology, psychoanalysis made no conciliatory advances. Towards psychiatry, its nearest of kin, it took an unfriendly position, quite too plainly implying a disdain for an unprogressive relative. These estrangements affected its relations throughout the domain of mind and its ills; but they came to head in the practice. From the outset in the days of struggle, when it had but a sparse and scattered discipleship, to the present position of prominence, Freudianism went its own way, for the most part neglected by academic psychology. Of dreams, lapses and neuroses, orthodox psychology had little say. The second reason for the impression made by psychoanalysis when once launched against the tide of academic resistance was its recognition of depth psychology, so much closer to human motivation, so much more intimate and direct than the analysis of mental factors. Most persons in trouble would be grateful for relief without critical examination of the theory behind the practice that helped them. Anyone at all acquainted with the ebb and flow of cures – cures that cure cures that fail – need not be told that the scientific basis of the system is often the least important factor. Many of these systems arise empirically within a practice, which by trial, seems to give results. This is not the case in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis belongs to the typical groups of therapies in which practice is entirely a derivative of theory. Here the pertinent psychological principle reads:"create a belief in the theory, and the fact will create themselves".
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.5/8: The popularity enjoyed by the psychoanalytical movement may be directly attributed to
ADissatisfaction with existing methods of psychology.
BIts logical, coherent process of ratiocination.
CIts novel unconventionality in both postulate and practice.
DIts concentration upon the humanistic aspect of psychological analysis.
Answer: Option D
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
117 / 927
He motive force that has carried the psychoanalytic movement to a voluminous wave of popular attention and created for it considerable following among those discontent with traditional methods and attitudes, is the frank direction of the psychological instruments of exploration to the insistent and intimate problems of human relations. However false or however true its conclusions, however weak or strong its arguments, however effective or defective or even pernicious its practice, its mission is broadly humanistic. Psychological enlightenment is presented as a program of salvation. By no other appeal could the service of psychology have become so glorified. The therapeutic promise of psychoanalysis came as the most novel, most ambitious, most releasing of the long procession of curative systems that mark the history of mental healing. To the contemporary trends in psychology, psychoanalysis actually offered a rebuke, a challenge, a supplement, though it appeared to ignore them. With the practical purpose of applied psychology directed to human efficiency it had no direct relation and thus no quarrel. The solution of behaviorism, likewise bidding for popular approval by reducing adjustment to a program of conditioning, it inevitably found alien and irrelevant, as the behaviorist in reciprocity found psychoanalytic doctrine mystical, fantastic, assumptive, remote. Even to the cognate formulations of mental hygiene, as likewise in its contacts with related fields of psychology, psychoanalysis made no conciliatory advances. Towards psychiatry, its nearest of kin, it took an unfriendly position, quite too plainly implying a disdain for an unprogressive relative. These estrangements affected its relations throughout the domain of mind and its ills; but they came to head in the practice. From the outset in the days of struggle, when it had but a sparse and scattered discipleship, to the present position of prominence, Freudianism went its own way, for the most part neglected by academic psychology. Of dreams, lapses and neuroses, orthodox psychology had little say. The second reason for the impression made by psychoanalysis when once launched against the tide of academic resistance was its recognition of depth psychology, so much closer to human motivation, so much more intimate and direct than the analysis of mental factors. Most persons in trouble would be grateful for relief without critical examination of the theory behind the practice that helped them. Anyone at all acquainted with the ebb and flow of cures – cures that cure cures that fail – need not be told that the scientific basis of the system is often the least important factor. Many of these systems arise empirically within a practice, which by trial, seems to give results. This is not the case in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis belongs to the typical groups of therapies in which practice is entirely a derivative of theory. Here the pertinent psychological principle reads:"create a belief in the theory, and the fact will create themselves".
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.6/8: The only statement to receive support from the passage is which of the following?
APsychoanalysis concentrated more on the theoretical remedies than their practical implementation.
BPsychoanalysis broke the shackles of convention in its involvement with humanistic issues.
CThe attitude of psychoanalysis towards allied branches of psychology could at best be described as indifferent.
DPsychoanalysis dispelled the prevalent notion that dreams were repressed desires.
Answer: Option B
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
118 / 927
He motive force that has carried the psychoanalytic movement to a voluminous wave of popular attention and created for it considerable following among those discontent with traditional methods and attitudes, is the frank direction of the psychological instruments of exploration to the insistent and intimate problems of human relations. However false or however true its conclusions, however weak or strong its arguments, however effective or defective or even pernicious its practice, its mission is broadly humanistic. Psychological enlightenment is presented as a program of salvation. By no other appeal could the service of psychology have become so glorified. The therapeutic promise of psychoanalysis came as the most novel, most ambitious, most releasing of the long procession of curative systems that mark the history of mental healing. To the contemporary trends in psychology, psychoanalysis actually offered a rebuke, a challenge, a supplement, though it appeared to ignore them. With the practical purpose of applied psychology directed to human efficiency it had no direct relation and thus no quarrel. The solution of behaviorism, likewise bidding for popular approval by reducing adjustment to a program of conditioning, it inevitably found alien and irrelevant, as the behaviorist in reciprocity found psychoanalytic doctrine mystical, fantastic, assumptive, remote. Even to the cognate formulations of mental hygiene, as likewise in its contacts with related fields of psychology, psychoanalysis made no conciliatory advances. Towards psychiatry, its nearest of kin, it took an unfriendly position, quite too plainly implying a disdain for an unprogressive relative. These estrangements affected its relations throughout the domain of mind and its ills; but they came to head in the practice. From the outset in the days of struggle, when it had but a sparse and scattered discipleship, to the present position of prominence, Freudianism went its own way, for the most part neglected by academic psychology. Of dreams, lapses and neuroses, orthodox psychology had little say. The second reason for the impression made by psychoanalysis when once launched against the tide of academic resistance was its recognition of depth psychology, so much closer to human motivation, so much more intimate and direct than the analysis of mental factors. Most persons in trouble would be grateful for relief without critical examination of the theory behind the practice that helped them. Anyone at all acquainted with the ebb and flow of cures – cures that cure cures that fail – need not be told that the scientific basis of the system is often the least important factor. Many of these systems arise empirically within a practice, which by trial, seems to give results. This is not the case in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis belongs to the typical groups of therapies in which practice is entirely a derivative of theory. Here the pertinent psychological principle reads:"create a belief in the theory, and the fact will create themselves".
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.7/8: Psychoanalysis are of the opinion that
Amethods of psychoanalysis must be in keeping with individual needs.
Binferences can be drawn empirically from repeated experiments with any given theory.
Ctheory leads to practice.
Dpractice culminates into theory.
Answer: Option C
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
119 / 927
He motive force that has carried the psychoanalytic movement to a voluminous wave of popular attention and created for it considerable following among those discontent with traditional methods and attitudes, is the frank direction of the psychological instruments of exploration to the insistent and intimate problems of human relations. However false or however true its conclusions, however weak or strong its arguments, however effective or defective or even pernicious its practice, its mission is broadly humanistic. Psychological enlightenment is presented as a program of salvation. By no other appeal could the service of psychology have become so glorified. The therapeutic promise of psychoanalysis came as the most novel, most ambitious, most releasing of the long procession of curative systems that mark the history of mental healing. To the contemporary trends in psychology, psychoanalysis actually offered a rebuke, a challenge, a supplement, though it appeared to ignore them. With the practical purpose of applied psychology directed to human efficiency it had no direct relation and thus no quarrel. The solution of behaviorism, likewise bidding for popular approval by reducing adjustment to a program of conditioning, it inevitably found alien and irrelevant, as the behaviorist in reciprocity found psychoanalytic doctrine mystical, fantastic, assumptive, remote. Even to the cognate formulations of mental hygiene, as likewise in its contacts with related fields of psychology, psychoanalysis made no conciliatory advances. Towards psychiatry, its nearest of kin, it took an unfriendly position, quite too plainly implying a disdain for an unprogressive relative. These estrangements affected its relations throughout the domain of mind and its ills; but they came to head in the practice. From the outset in the days of struggle, when it had but a sparse and scattered discipleship, to the present position of prominence, Freudianism went its own way, for the most part neglected by academic psychology. Of dreams, lapses and neuroses, orthodox psychology had little say. The second reason for the impression made by psychoanalysis when once launched against the tide of academic resistance was its recognition of depth psychology, so much closer to human motivation, so much more intimate and direct than the analysis of mental factors. Most persons in trouble would be grateful for relief without critical examination of the theory behind the practice that helped them. Anyone at all acquainted with the ebb and flow of cures – cures that cure cures that fail – need not be told that the scientific basis of the system is often the least important factor. Many of these systems arise empirically within a practice, which by trial, seems to give results. This is not the case in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis belongs to the typical groups of therapies in which practice is entirely a derivative of theory. Here the pertinent psychological principle reads:"create a belief in the theory, and the fact will create themselves".
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.8/8: Create a belief in theory and
Abelief will be created itself.
Btheory will be created itself.
Cfacts will be created themselves .
DAll of the above.
Answer: Option C
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
120 / 927
To summarize the Classic Maya collapse, we can tentatively identify five strands. I acknowledge, however, that Maya archaeologists still disagree vigorously among themselves in part, because the different strands evidently varied in importance among different parts of the Maya realm; because detailed archaeological studies are available for only some Maya sites; and because it remains puzzling why most of the Maya heartland remained nearly empty of population and failed to recover after the collapse and after re-growth of forests.
With those caveats, it appears to me that one strand consisted of population growth outstripping available resources: a dilemma similar to the one foreseen by Thomas Malthus in 1798 and being played out today in Rwanda (Chapter 10), Haiti (Chapter 11), and elsewhere. As the archaeologist David Webster succinctly puts it, Too many farmers grew too many crops on too much of the landscape. Compounding that mismatch between population and resources was the second strand: the effects of deforestation and hillside erosion, which caused a decrease in the amount of use able farmland at a time when more rather than less farmland was needed, and possibly exacerbated by an anthropocentric drought resulting from deforestation, by soil nutrient depletion and other soil problems, and by the struggle to prevent bracken ferns from overrunning the fields.
The third strand consisted of increased fighting, as more and more people fought over fewer resources. Maya warfare, already endemic, peaked just before the collapse. That is not surprising when one reflects that at least 5,000,000 people, perhaps many more, were crammed into an area smaller than the state of Colorado (104,000 square miles). That warfare would have decreased further the amount of land available for agriculture, by creating no-man's lands between principalities where it was now unsafe to farm. Bringing matters to a head was the strand of climate change. The drought at the time of the Classic collapse was not the first drought that the Maya had lived through, but it was the most severe. At the time of previous droughts, there were still uninhabited parts of the Maya landscape, and people at a site affected by drought could save themselves by moving to another site. However, by the time of the Classic collapse the landscape was now full, there was no useful unoccupied land in the vicinity on which to begin anew, and the whole population could not be accommodated in the few areas that continued to have reliable water supplies.
As our fifth strand, we have to wonder why the kings and nobles failed to recognize and solve these seemingly obvious problems undermining their society. Their attention was evidently focused on their short-term concerns of enriching themselves, waging wars, erecting monuments, competing with each other, and extracting enough food from the peasants to support all those activities. Like most leaders throughout human history, the Maya kings and nobles did not heed long-term problems, insofar as they perceived them. We shall return to this theme in Chapter 14.
Finally, while we still have some other past societies to consider in this book before we switch our attention to the modern world, we must already be struck by some parallels between the Maya and the past societies discussed in Chapters 2-4. As on Easter Island, Mangareva, and among the Anasazi, Maya environmental and population problems led to increasing warfare and civil strife. As on Easter Island and at Chaco Canyon, Maya peak population numbers were followed swiftly by political and social collapse. Paralleling the eventual extension of agriculture from Easter Island's coastal lowlands to its uplands, and from the Mimbres floodplain to the hills, Copan's inhabitants also expanded from the floodplain to the more fragile hill slopes, leaving them with a larger population to feed when the agricultural boom in the hills went bust. Like Easter Island chiefs erecting ever larger statues, eventually crowned by pukao, and like Anasazi elite treating themselves to necklaces of 2,000 turquoise beads, Maya kings sought to outdo each other with more and more impressive temples, covered with thicker and thicker plaster reminiscent in turn of the extravagant conspicuous consumption by modern American CEOs. The passivity of Easter chiefs and Maya kings in the face of the real big threats to their societies completes our list of disquieting parallels.
Read Full Paragraph
Qs.1/5: According to the passage, which of the following best represents the factor that has been cited by the author in the context of Rwanda and Haiti?
AVarious ethnic groups competing for land and other resources.
BVarious ethnic groups competing for limited land resources.
CVarious ethnic groups fighting wit each other.
DVarious ethnic groups competing for political power.
EVarious ethnic groups fighting for their identity.
Answer: Option B
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
Companies take reading comprehension test to check the reading and grasping skills of the candidates. It also helps the companies to understand the pressure handling skills of the candidates. You can take mock verbal ability and reading comprehension test to master this skill and crack the job interviews easily.
You can search the set of questions by company (Please click on a company box under the tag cloud box) to filter the questions easily. You can also view the answer to understand the explanation or use the workspace for practice purpose. So, improve your verbal ability and reading comprehension skills today and crack the job interview comfortable with flying colors!
In this practice section, you can practice Verbal Ability Questions based on "Reading Comprehension" and improve your skills in order to face the interview, competitive examination, IT companies Written exam, and various other entrance tests (CAT, GATE, GRE, MAT, Bank Exam, Railway Exam etc.) with full confidence.
Q4Interview provides you lots of fully solved Verbal Ability (Reading Comprehension) questions and answers with Explanation. Solved examples with detailed answer description, explanation are given and it would be easy to understand. You can download Verbal Ability Reading Comprehension quiz questions with answers as PDF files and eBooks.
Here you can find objective type Verbal Ability Reading Comprehension questions and answers for interview and entrance examination. Multiple choice and true or false type questions are also provided.