IELTS PREDICTION TEST

The Whale Goes to Court
A remarkable legal drama in the U.S.A.
In 1818 a whale became the subject of a controversial court case in New York City. The case involved an old law requiring those who sold fish oil to pay a fee in order to have their barrels inspected by city officials, and certified. However, an oil merchant named Samuel Judd refused to pay the inspection fee on three barrels of oil, claiming that no inspection was necessary because it was whale oil, and whales were not fish. The state disagreed, and so a date was set for a court to decide not a point of law, but the answer to a more fundamental question: is a whale a fish?
As simple as that question may appear today, the answer was far from obvious in the early nineteenth century. Indeed, the public debate in New York sparked off by the trial was sensational. At stake was nothing less than what most regarded as the order of nature. According to the commonly accepted scheme of things if an animal was not a beast or a bird, it was a fish, regardless of whether it breathed air or suckled its young. For as long as anyone could remember, all non-human creatures had been organised according to the categories of birds, beasts and fish. For the average person the answer seemed perfectly obvious: whales swam in the sea and therefore they were fish.
Against this traditional framework stood the new Linnaean system of classification, which sought to introduce more scientific values into the classification of living things. Barely half a century old in 1818, the Linnaean system controversially classified whales as mammals because they shared two mammalian characteristics: they were warm-blooded and breathed air.
So the trial began in December 1818. Judd’s defence lawyers chose as their star witness one of New York’s most prominent figures, the congressman Samuel Mitchill. Referred to as a ‘living encyclopaedia’ and a ‘walking library’, Mitchill was a renowned natural history lecturer at the College of Physicians and Surgeons who liked to dare his students to test his knowledge of the natural world. ‘Show me the fin, and I will name the fish,’ he boasted. Scientifically, it was an open-and-shut case, and Judd’s defence lawyers believed they only had to do one simple thing to win the trial: insist that it be decided by biology alone. Mitchill seemed fully qualified for this role.
But this is where the case becomes interesting, and is the reason why the trial of the whale is not some dusty nineteenth-century obscurity. For rather than debate Mitchill on his area of expertise, lawyers for the New York City fish-oil inspectors chose a different tack. Lead counsel William Sampson turned the trial into a contest between scientific learning and common sense, by asking plain-spoken whalers to make their case before the jury.
The crux of Sampson’s case was the trial’s implication with regard to humans, should Judd be found not guilty. Sampson told jury members that if they accepted Mitchill’s testimony on whales, they were obliged to accept a lower place for their own kind in the natural order. As a result, Mitchill’s day in court did not go smoothly, not least because he was forced to acknowledge serious disputes among his peers regarding exactly how to classify biological organisms. Sampson then took aim at Mitchill himself and what he represented: privileged aristocrats from the scientific community who had lost touch with reality. The smooth-talking Sampson then claimed Mitchill’s beliefs had their origin in Europe – something he rightly judged would infuriate the citizens of always-independent New York. This revolutionary new thinking, Sampson insisted, was something that honest working New Yorkers could do without. No longer was this a case about barrels of oil, but the proper place of scientific knowledge in the U.S.A.
Ultimately, what won the case for Samuel Judd were not Mitchill’s scientific arguments, but testimony from a different sphere altogether. In New York’s markets, the merchants implicitly understood that whale oil and fish oil were not the same: whale oil could be used as a fuel for lamps because it could be burned without giving off smoke; fish oil, on the other hand, was nasty, impure stuff used primarily in tanning leather. In the end it was this testimony that led to Judd’s victory.
The trial of the whale still has relevance today, when the court of public opinion remains easily swayed by sceptics. The 1818 trial was really about this question: who gets to decide on the place of the natural world in the human world – scientific experts or public opinion? Whether the issue today is the effects of human activity on the climate of this planet, or one of many other contemporary topics, the legacy of Judd’s case continues to be of relevance.

Questions 1–7

Questions 8–13

Passage 1

Playing with science
Is science always a serious matter? No, says Pierre Laszlo, who believes that scientists are often just like children at play
A         The connection between science and play is not often discussed, perhaps because scientists take it for granted, or because they are a little self-conscious about it and therefore try to hide it. In this context, play might describe a number of different activities. Play might involve the exploration of new uses for everyday objects just for curiosity; it could also include word jokes, or the playing of jokes or tricks upon other scientists. The element of play in science is thus an elusive and difficult topic, but it is fundamental to the experience of scientists.
B         One example of this connection is the jigsaw puzzle. Such puzzles present their players with two-dimensional fragments, each with a characteristic shape, from which to reconstruct an overall picture. Guessing the solution of a scientific problem has many similarities to completing a jigsaw puzzle. The scientists inspect each piece of data for a possible fit with its neighbours and, bit by bit, construct a whole argument. People who are good at jigsaw puzzles are able to guess which piece will fit even before trying it. In the same way, the best scientists are those who make the best guesses.
C         But scientists do not play only at out-guessing each other, or at putting together pieces to complete a puzzle. They also regard their work as ‘playing” with “toys”. Joseph Lambert, a professor of chemistry at Northwestern University in the US, shed some light on this tendency. In a letter he wrote the following:
When I grew up, every kid put in some serious sandbox time, and it often involved building… complex sand structures around which fantasies were composed… The organic chemistry labs at Yale. and chemical transformations took place… The odours were pleasant, and the were fun in the same way. We mixed things up. physical process of working with our hands, as with sand, was satisfying… by the end of the year, I knew that I wanted to be an organic chemist, as I realised one could play in the sandbox for a living.
Indeed, many scientists amuse themselves by ‘playing with various “toys’ of their trade perhaps coming up with ingenious devices to get a particular job done, or diverting a piece of commercial equipment for novel scientific purposes. The apparatus put together by Robert Millikan and Harvey Fletcher to measure the charge of the electron, which involved a perfume atomiser bought at a local pharmacy, is a classic example of such inspired tinkering.
D         Whereas society often keeps a lid on playfulness, science encourages and nurtures it Take, for example, the funny names that scientists have given to various chemical substances: tristane, windowpane, penguinone or megaphone. Each class of organ molecules includes a few such humorous names. Similar fun is had in other fields of science.
E          Hoaxes are a further aspect of the playfulness of scientists. A relatively recent example concerns the ‘Plate of Brasse’, which stated England’s claim to California and was supposedly left by the English navigator Sir Francis Drake during his visit in 1579. A brass plate thought to be Drake’s was discovered in the 1930s. But in 1977, Helen Michel and Frank Asaro, of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, showed that the copper and zinc used in the plate were of a higher quality than would have been available in the 1500s. They concluded that Drake’s plate was most likely crafted much closer to the time when it was first brought to light.
F          Shortly afterwards, staff at the University of California announced that the artefact was devised as a practical joke by a group of friends of Herbert E Bolton, who directed the Bancroft Library at the University’s Berkeley campus. Bolton, it seems, was intrigued by tales of Drake having installed a plate to record his visit to California, and offen urged his students to look for it. Some of Bolton’s friends decided to play a joke on him, but things misfired after Bolton went public and announced that the relic was authentic before he could be told about the joke.
G         Sometimes hoaxes serve a useful purpose. Some years ago, Nathan Lewis, a professor of chemistry at California Institute of Technology, and a graduate student were doing experiments in the laboratory of a senior professor, Harry Gray. Another co-worker had the habit of going through their data and rushing to Gray with his interpretation. Lewis decided to set a trap for the co-worker. He recalls: I manufactured an NMR spectrum. We left it out as bait. (Our colleague] took it and wrote up a paper on how important this result was. He was ready to go right to [the Journal of the American Chemical Society]… We didn’t let him mail it [but] this stopped him temporarily from taking our data and interpreting it before making sure that it was right.
H         But is the playfulness of science usually so helpful? One might argue that to play a practical joke is a waste of time. So why do it? Perhaps play is an inherent part of the human condition. The psychologist’s answer might be that scientists tend to play because science presents them with too much seriousness. Another possibility might be that scientists like to play because they tend to be very young. Some disciplines. mathematics especially, have a reputation for the narrow window of creativity in youth. But it may also be that there is some cognitive value to the playful element in science. Playing with ideas, after all, is what science is all about. A playful, childlike attitude may be extremely fruitful, and scientists should not be too embarrassed to acknowledge that play is often what motivates them.

Questions 14–20

Questions 21–22

Questions 23–26

Passage 2

Termite Mounds 
{iii. reconsidering the termite’s reputation}
To most of us, termites are destructive insects which can cause damage on a devastating scale. But according to Dr Rupert Soar of Loughborough University’s School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, these pests may serve a useful purpose for us after all. His multi-disciplinary team of British and American engineers and biologists have set out to investigate the giant mounds built by termites in Namibia, in sub-Saharan Africa, as part of the most extensive study of these structures ever taken.
{vii. the astonishing physical dimensions of the termite mound} 
Termite mounds are impressive for their size alone; typically they are three metres high, and some as tall as eight metres by found. They also reach far into the earth, where the insects ‘mine’ their building materials, carefully selecting each grain of sand they use. The termite’s nest is contained in the central cavity of the mound, safely protected from the harsh environment outside. The mound itself is formed of an intricate lattice of tunnels, which spilt into smaller and smaller tunnels, much like a person’s blood vessels.
{iv. principal functions of the termite mound} 
This complex system of tunnels draws in air from the outside, capturing wind energy to drive it through the mound. It also serves to expel spent respiratory gases from the nest to prevent the termites from suffocating, so ensuring them a continuous provision of fresh, breathable air. So detailed is the design that the nest stays within three degrees of a constant temperature, despite variations on the outside of up to 500C, from blistering heat in the daytime to below freezing on the coldest nights. The mound also automatically regulates moisture in the air, by means of best its underground ‘cellar’, and evaporation from the top of the mound. Some colonies even had ‘chimneys’ at a height of 20m to control moisture less in the hottest regions of sub-Saharan Africa.
{ix. a mutually beneficial relationship}
Furthermore, the termites have evolved in such a way as to outsource some of their biological functions. Part of their digestive process in camera out by a fungus, which they ‘farm’ inside the mound. This fungus, which is found nowhere else on earth, thrives in the constant and optimum environment of the mound. The termites feed the fungus with slightly chewed wood pulp, which the fungus then breaks down into a digestible sugary food to provide the insects with energy, and cellulose which they use for building. And, although the termites must generate waste, none ever leaves the structure, indicating that there is also some kind of internal waste-recycling system.
{ii. challenging our assumptions about the nature of life}
Scientists are so excited by the mounds that they have labelled them a ‘super organism’ because, in Soar’s word. “They dance on the edge of what we would perceive to cool down, or if you’re too cold you need to thrive: that’s called homeostasis. What the termites have done is to move homeostatic function away from their body, into the structure in which they live. ‘As more information comes to light about the unique features of termite mounds, we may ultimately need to redefine our understanding of what constitutes a ‘living’ organism.
{i. methods used to investigate termite mound formation}
To reveal the structure of the mounds, Soar’s team begins by filling and covering their plaster of Paris, a chalky white paste based on the mineral gypsum, which becomes rock-solid when dry. The researcher’s hen carves the plaster of Paris into half-millimatre-thick slices, and photograph them sequentially. Once the pictures are digitally scanned, computer technology is able to recreate complex three-dimensional images of the mounds. These models have enabled the team to map termite architecture at a level of detail never before attained.
{vi. some potential benefits of understanding termite architecture}
Soar hopes that the models will explain how termite mounds create a self-regulating living environment which manages to respond to changing internal and external conditions without drawing on any outside source of power. If they do, the findings could be invaluable in informing future architectural design, and could inspire buildings that are self-sufficient, environmentally, and cheap to run. ‘As we approach a world of climate change, we need temperatures to rise, he explains, there will not be enough fuel to drive air conditioners around the world. It is hoped, says Soar, ‘ that the findings will provide clues that aid the ultimate development of new kinds of human habitats, suitable for a variety of arid, hostile environments not only on the earth but maybe one day on the moon and beyond.

Mock Test Reading

IELTS Reading Exam

Tổng quan

Lịch sử làm bài

Bài test nổi bật

Reading Test 48

Có thể bạn quan tâm

Reading Test 39

Reading Test 38

Reading Test 37

Bài thi tương tự

Reading Test 48

Reading Test 39

Reading Test 38

Reading Test 37

Sẵn sàng cho kì thi IELTS máy?