AILET entrance exam Question Bank Solutions for English Language

Paragraph: On the surface, the conquest of the Aztec empire by Herman Cortes is one of the most amazing military accomplishments in history. With a small fighting force numbering in the hundreds, Cortes led the Spanish explorers into victory against an Aztec population that many believe topped 21 million. In light of such a seemingly impossible victory, the obvious question is: how did a small group of foreign fighters manage to topple one of the world's strongest, wealthiest, and most successful military empires? 
Several factors led to Cortes' success. First, the Spanish exploited animosity toward the Aztecs among rival groups and convinced thousands of locals to fight. In one account of a battle, it is recorded that at least 200,000 natives fought with Cortes. Next, the Spanish possessed superior military equipment in the form of European cannons, guns, and crossbows, leading to effective and efficient disposal of Aztec defenses. For example, Spanish cannons quickly defeated large Aztec walls that had protected the empire against big and less technically advanced armies.

Despite the Spanish advantages, the Aztecs probably could have succeeded in defending their capital city of Tenochtitlan had they leveraged their incredible population base to increase their army's size and ensured that no rogue cities would ally with Cortes. In order to accomplish this later goal, Aztec leader Motecuhzoma needed to send envoys to neighboring cities telling their inhabitants about the horrors of Spanish conquest and the inevitability of Spanish betrayal.

In addition, the Aztecs should have exploited the fact that the battle was taking place on their territory. No reason existed for the Aztecs to consent to a conventional battle, which heavily favored the Spanish. Motecuhzoma's forces should have thought outside the box and allowed Cortes into the city, only to subsequently use hundreds of thousands of fighters to prevent escape and proceed in surprise "door-to-door" combat. With this type of battle, the Aztecs would have largely thwarted Spanish technological supremacy. However, in the end, the superior weaponry of the Spanish, the pent-up resentment of Aztec rivals, the failure of Aztec diplomacy, and the lack of an unconventional Aztec war plan led to one of the most surprising military outcomes in the past one thousand years.

The author's tone can best be described as?

Paragraph: On the surface, the conquest of the Aztec empire by Herman Cortes is one of the most amazing military accomplishments in history. With a small fighting force numbering in the hundreds, Cortes led the Spanish explorers into victory against an Aztec population that many believe topped 21 million. In light of such a seemingly impossible victory, the obvious question is: how did a small group of foreign fighters manage to topple one of the world's strongest, wealthiest, and most successful military empires? 
Several factors led to Cortes' success. First, the Spanish exploited animosity toward the Aztecs among rival groups and convinced thousands of locals to fight. In one account of a battle, it is recorded that at least 200,000 natives fought with Cortes. Next, the Spanish possessed superior military equipment in the form of European cannons, guns, and crossbows, leading to effective and efficient disposal of Aztec defenses. For example, Spanish cannons quickly defeated large Aztec walls that had protected the empire against big and less technically advanced armies.

Despite the Spanish advantages, the Aztecs probably could have succeeded in defending their capital city of Tenochtitlan had they leveraged their incredible population base to increase their army's size and ensured that no rogue cities would ally with Cortes. In order to accomplish this later goal, Aztec leader Motecuhzoma needed to send envoys to neighboring cities telling their inhabitants about the horrors of Spanish conquest and the inevitability of Spanish betrayal.

In addition, the Aztecs should have exploited the fact that the battle was taking place on their territory. No reason existed for the Aztecs to consent to a conventional battle, which heavily favored the Spanish. Motecuhzoma's forces should have thought outside the box and allowed Cortes into the city, only to subsequently use hundreds of thousands of fighters to prevent escape and proceed in surprise "door-to-door" combat. With this type of battle, the Aztecs would have largely thwarted Spanish technological supremacy. However, in the end, the superior weaponry of the Spanish, the pent-up resentment of Aztec rivals, the failure of Aztec diplomacy, and the lack of an unconventional Aztec war plan led to one of the most surprising military outcomes in the past one thousand years.

The author implies which of the following about the nature of Aztec regional influence and power?

Paragraph: On the surface, the conquest of the Aztec empire by Herman Cortes is one of the most amazing military accomplishments in history. With a small fighting force numbering in the hundreds, Cortes led the Spanish explorers into victory against an Aztec population that many believe topped 21 million. In light of such a seemingly impossible victory, the obvious question is: how did a small group of foreign fighters manage to topple one of the world's strongest, wealthiest, and most successful military empires? 
Several factors led to Cortes' success. First, the Spanish exploited animosity toward the Aztecs among rival groups and convinced thousands of locals to fight. In one account of a battle, it is recorded that at least 200,000 natives fought with Cortes. Next, the Spanish possessed superior military equipment in the form of European cannons, guns, and crossbows, leading to effective and efficient disposal of Aztec defenses. For example, Spanish cannons quickly defeated large Aztec walls that had protected the empire against big and less technically advanced armies.

Despite the Spanish advantages, the Aztecs probably could have succeeded in defending their capital city of Tenochtitlan had they leveraged their incredible population base to increase their army's size and ensured that no rogue cities would ally with Cortes. In order to accomplish this later goal, Aztec leader Motecuhzoma needed to send envoys to neighboring cities telling their inhabitants about the horrors of Spanish conquest and the inevitability of Spanish betrayal.

In addition, the Aztecs should have exploited the fact that the battle was taking place on their territory. No reason existed for the Aztecs to consent to a conventional battle, which heavily favored the Spanish. Motecuhzoma's forces should have thought outside the box and allowed Cortes into the city, only to subsequently use hundreds of thousands of fighters to prevent escape and proceed in surprise "door-to-door" combat. With this type of battle, the Aztecs would have largely thwarted Spanish technological supremacy. However, in the end, the superior weaponry of the Spanish, the pent-up resentment of Aztec rivals, the failure of Aztec diplomacy, and the lack of an unconventional Aztec war plan led to one of the most surprising military outcomes in the past one thousand years.

Which of the following best characterizes the main point the author is trying to convey in the passage?

Paragraph: In response to the increasing environmental damage wrought by poachers, authorities placed a ban on ivory in the 1980s. Although the ban resulted in an initial decrease in the sale and trade of illegal ivory and a concurrent increase in the elephant population, more pressing needs caused most Western nations to withdraw funding for poaching prevention programs. Without significant financial support, poorer countries were unable to effectively combat poachers. The resulting explosion in the ivory trade has seen prices increase to nearly 10 times the $45 per pound price at the beginning of the decade.

Unfortunately, the countries with the worst poaching problems have also tended to be the ones least able to combat the problem due to unstable political systems, corruption, lack of comprehensive enforcement programs, or some combination of all these factors. One primary hindrance to better enforcement of the ivory ban came from an inability to definitively identify the country of origin of illegal ivory. 

Countries used this uncertainty to avoid responsibility for curbing illegal poaching in their territories by attempting to blame other countries for the oversights in enforcement. Now, though, zoologists have perfected a new DNA identification system. First, scientists gathered genetic data from the population of African elephants, an arduous effort that ultimately resulted in a detailed DNA-based map of the distribution of African elephants. Then, the researchers developed a method to extract DNA evidence from ivory, allowing them to match the ivory with elephant populations on the map. Zoologists hope this new method will pinpoint the exact origin of poached ivory and force countries to accept their responsibility in enforcing the ban.

The passage suggests which of the following about the ivory ban?

Paragraph: In response to the increasing environmental damage wrought by poachers, authorities placed a ban on ivory in the 1980s. Although the ban resulted in an initial decrease in the sale and trade of illegal ivory and a concurrent increase in the elephant population, more pressing needs caused most Western nations to withdraw funding for poaching prevention programs. Without significant financial support, poorer countries were unable to effectively combat poachers. The resulting explosion in the ivory trade has seen prices increase to nearly 10 times the $45 per pound price at the beginning of the decade.

Unfortunately, the countries with the worst poaching problems have also tended to be the ones least able to combat the problem due to unstable political systems, corruption, lack of comprehensive enforcement programs, or some combination of all these factors. One primary hindrance to better enforcement of the ivory ban came from an inability to definitively identify the country of origin of illegal ivory. 

Countries used this uncertainty to avoid responsibility for curbing illegal poaching in their territories by attempting to blame other countries for the oversights in enforcement. Now, though, zoologists have perfected a new DNA identification system. First, scientists gathered genetic data from the population of African elephants, an arduous effort that ultimately resulted in a detailed DNA-based map of the distribution of African elephants. Then, the researchers developed a method to extract DNA evidence from ivory, allowing them to match the ivory with elephant populations on the map. Zoologists hope this new method will pinpoint the exact origin of poached ivory and force countries to accept their responsibility in enforcing the ban.

The response of the countries with the worst poaching problems to the situation was most analogous to:

Paragraph: In response to the increasing environmental damage wrought by poachers, authorities placed a ban on ivory in the 1980s. Although the ban resulted in an initial decrease in the sale and trade of illegal ivory and a concurrent increase in the elephant population, more pressing needs caused most Western nations to withdraw funding for poaching prevention programs. Without significant financial support, poorer countries were unable to effectively combat poachers. The resulting explosion in the ivory trade has seen prices increase to nearly 10 times the $45 per pound price at the beginning of the decade.

Unfortunately, the countries with the worst poaching problems have also tended to be the ones least able to combat the problem due to unstable political systems, corruption, lack of comprehensive enforcement programs, or some combination of all these factors. One primary hindrance to better enforcement of the ivory ban came from an inability to definitively identify the country of origin of illegal ivory. 

Countries used this uncertainty to avoid responsibility for curbing illegal poaching in their territories by attempting to blame other countries for the oversights in enforcement. Now, though, zoologists have perfected a new DNA identification system. First, scientists gathered genetic data from the population of African elephants, an arduous effort that ultimately resulted in a detailed DNA-based map of the distribution of African elephants. Then, the researchers developed a method to extract DNA evidence from ivory, allowing them to match the ivory with elephant populations on the map. Zoologists hope this new method will pinpoint the exact origin of poached ivory and force countries to accept their responsibility in enforcing the ban.

The passage suggests which of the following about the DNA-based map created by zoologists?

Paragraph: In response to the increasing environmental damage wrought by poachers, authorities placed a ban on ivory in the 1980s. Although the ban resulted in an initial decrease in the sale and trade of illegal ivory and a concurrent increase in the elephant population, more pressing needs caused most Western nations to withdraw funding for poaching prevention programs. Without significant financial support, poorer countries were unable to effectively combat poachers. The resulting explosion in the ivory trade has seen prices increase to nearly 10 times the $45 per pound price at the beginning of the decade.

Unfortunately, the countries with the worst poaching problems have also tended to be the ones least able to combat the problem due to unstable political systems, corruption, lack of comprehensive enforcement programs, or some combination of all these factors. One primary hindrance to better enforcement of the ivory ban came from an inability to definitively identify the country of origin of illegal ivory. 

Countries used this uncertainty to avoid responsibility for curbing illegal poaching in their territories by attempting to blame other countries for the oversights in enforcement. Now, though, zoologists have perfected a new DNA identification system. First, scientists gathered genetic data from the population of African elephants, an arduous effort that ultimately resulted in a detailed DNA-based map of the distribution of African elephants. Then, the researchers developed a method to extract DNA evidence from ivory, allowing them to match the ivory with elephant populations on the map. Zoologists hope this new method will pinpoint the exact origin of poached ivory and force countries to accept their responsibility in enforcing the ban.

The passage is chiefly concerned with:

Paragraph: I felt the wall of the tunnel shiver. The master alarm squealed through my earphones. Almost simultaneously, Jack yelled down to me that there was a warning light on. Fleeting but spectacular sights snapped into and out of view, the snow, the shower of debris, the moon, looming close and big, the dazzling sunshine for once unfiltered by layers of air. The last twelve hours before re-entry were particular bone-chilling. During this period, I had to go up into command module. Even after the fiery re-entry splashing down in 81o water in south pacific, we could still see our frosty breath inside the command module.

The word 'Command Module' used twice in the given passage indicates perhaps that it deals with

Paragraph: I felt the wall of the tunnel shiver. The master alarm squealed through my earphones. Almost simultaneously, Jack yelled down to me that there was a warning light on. Fleeting but spectacular sights snapped into and out of view, the snow, the shower of debris, the moon, looming close and big, the dazzling sunshine for once unfiltered by layers of air. The last twelve hours before re-entry were particular bone-chilling. During this period, I had to go up into command module. Even after the fiery re-entry splashing down in 81o water in south pacific, we could still see our frosty breath inside the command module.

Which one of the following reasons would one consider as more as possible for the warning lights to be on?

Paragraph: I felt the wall of the tunnel shiver. The master alarm squealed through my earphones. Almost simultaneously, Jack yelled down to me that there was a warning light on. Fleeting but spectacular sights snapped into and out of view, the snow, the shower of debris, the moon, looming close and big, the dazzling sunshine for once unfiltered by layers of air. The last twelve hours before re-entry were particular bone-chilling. During this period, I had to go up into command module. Even after the fiery re-entry splashing down in 81o water in south pacific, we could still see our frosty breath inside the command module.

The statement that the dazzling sunshine was "for once unfiltered by layers of air" means

Paragraph: Economists have long recognized a persistent and unfounded belief among the population which has come to be known as the anti-foreign bias. As a result of this bias, most people systematically underestimate the economic benefits of interactions with foreign nations. Some psychologists believe that this bias is rooted in a natural distrust of the "other," while others believe that a form of folk wisdom, seemingly in accord with common sense but nonetheless incorrect, explains the bias. This wisdom asserts that in any transaction there is a winner and a loser and any foreign nation that wants to engage in trade must be doing so because it seeks its own advantage. But nothing could be further from truth. 

No less an authority than Adam Smith, one of the fathers of the modern free market system, spoke glowingly of foreign trade in his influential treatise Wealth of Nations. "What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in a great kingdom," said Smith. His point is simple. A baker trades his bread to the cobbler for shoes and both men benefit from the trade because of the value of specialization. The same principle works for nations. Even more startling, a basic economic theorem, the Law of Comparative Advantage, states that mutually beneficial trade is possible even if one nation is less productive than the other.

Suppose a citizen of Country X can produce either 10 computers or five bushels of wheat and a citizen of Country Y can produce either three computers or two bushels of wheat. If one citizen from Country X switches from producing wheat to computers and three citizens from Country Y switch from producing computers to wheat, there is a net gain of one computer and one bushel of wheat.

The passage is primarily concerned with which of the following?

Paragraph: Economists have long recognized a persistent and unfounded belief among the population which has come to be known as the anti-foreign bias. As a result of this bias, most people systematically underestimate the economic benefits of interactions with foreign nations. Some psychologists believe that this bias is rooted in a natural distrust of the "other," while others believe that a form of folk wisdom, seemingly in accord with common sense but nonetheless incorrect, explains the bias. This wisdom asserts that in any transaction there is a winner and a loser and any foreign nation that wants to engage in trade must be doing so because it seeks its own advantage. But nothing could be further from truth. 

No less an authority than Adam Smith, one of the fathers of the modern free market system, spoke glowingly of foreign trade in his influential treatise Wealth of Nations. "What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in a great kingdom," said Smith. His point is simple. A baker trades his bread to the cobbler for shoes and both men benefit from the trade because of the value of specialization. The same principle works for nations. Even more startling, a basic economic theorem, the Law of Comparative Advantage, states that mutually beneficial trade is possible even if one nation is less productive than the other.

Suppose a citizen of Country X can produce either 10 computers or five bushels of wheat and a citizen of Country Y can produce either three computers or two bushels of wheat. If one citizen from Country X switches from producing wheat to computers and three citizens from Country Y switch from producing computers to wheat, there is a net gain of one computer and one bushel of wheat.

The author most likely mentions the "baker" and the "cobbler" in order to:

Paragraph: Economists have long recognized a persistent and unfounded belief among the population which has come to be known as the anti-foreign bias. As a result of this bias, most people systematically underestimate the economic benefits of interactions with foreign nations. Some psychologists believe that this bias is rooted in a natural distrust of the "other," while others believe that a form of folk wisdom, seemingly in accord with common sense but nonetheless incorrect, explains the bias. This wisdom asserts that in any transaction there is a winner and a loser and any foreign nation that wants to engage in trade must be doing so because it seeks its own advantage. But nothing could be further from truth. 

No less an authority than Adam Smith, one of the fathers of the modern free market system, spoke glowingly of foreign trade in his influential treatise Wealth of Nations. "What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in a great kingdom," said Smith. His point is simple. A baker trades his bread to the cobbler for shoes and both men benefit from the trade because of the value of specialization. The same principle works for nations. Even more startling, a basic economic theorem, the Law of Comparative Advantage, states that mutually beneficial trade is possible even if one nation is less productive than the other.

Suppose a citizen of Country X can produce either 10 computers or five bushels of wheat and a citizen of Country Y can produce either three computers or two bushels of wheat. If one citizen from Country X switches from producing wheat to computers and three citizens from Country Y switch from producing computers to wheat, there is a net gain of one computer and one bushel of wheat.

As it is described in the passage, which of the following most closely resembles "folk wisdom?"

Paragraph: Economists have long recognized a persistent and unfounded belief among the population which has come to be known as the anti-foreign bias. As a result of this bias, most people systematically underestimate the economic benefits of interactions with foreign nations. Some psychologists believe that this bias is rooted in a natural distrust of the "other," while others believe that a form of folk wisdom, seemingly in accord with common sense but nonetheless incorrect, explains the bias. This wisdom asserts that in any transaction there is a winner and a loser and any foreign nation that wants to engage in trade must be doing so because it seeks its own advantage. But nothing could be further from truth. 

No less an authority than Adam Smith, one of the fathers of the modern free market system, spoke glowingly of foreign trade in his influential treatise Wealth of Nations. "What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in a great kingdom," said Smith. His point is simple. A baker trades his bread to the cobbler for shoes and both men benefit from the trade because of the value of specialization. The same principle works for nations. Even more startling, a basic economic theorem, the Law of Comparative Advantage, states that mutually beneficial trade is possible even if one nation is less productive than the other.

Suppose a citizen of Country X can produce either 10 computers or five bushels of wheat and a citizen of Country Y can produce either three computers or two bushels of wheat. If one citizen from Country X switches from producing wheat to computers and three citizens from Country Y switch from producing computers to wheat, there is a net gain of one computer and one bushel of wheat.

The author most probably uses the word "startling" in reference to the Law of Comparative Advantage because:

Paragraph: Many great inventions are initially greeted with ridicule and disbelief. The invention of the airplane was no exception. Although many people who heard about the first powered flight on December 17, 1903 were excited and impressed, others reacted with peals of laughter. The idea of flying an aircraft was repulsive to some people. Such people called Wilbur and Orville Wright, the inventors of the first flying machine, impulsive fools. Negative reactions, however, did not stop the Wrights. Impelled by their desire to succeed, they continued their experiments in aviation.

Orville and Wilbur Wright had always had a compelling interest in aeronautics and mechanics. As young boys they earned money by making and selling kites and mechanical toys. Later, they designed a newspaper-folding machine, built a printing press, and operated a bicycle-repair shop. In 1896, when they read about the death of Otto Lilienthal, the brothers' interest in flight grew into a compulsion.

Lilienthal, a pioneer in hang-gliding, had controlled his gliders by shifting his body in the desired direction. This idea was repellent to the Wright brothers, however, and they searched for more efficient methods to control the balance of airborne vehicles. In 1900 and 1901, the Wrights tested numerous gliders and developed control techniques. The brothers' inability to obtain enough lift power for the gliders almost led them to abandon their efforts.

After further study, the Wright brothers concluded that the published tables of air pressure on curved surfaces must be wrong. They set up a wind tunnel and began a series of experiments with model wings. Because of their efforts, the old tables were repealed in time and replaced by the first reliable figures for air pressure on curved surfaces. This work, in turn, made it possible for the brothers to design a machine that would fly. In 1903 the Wrights built their first airplane, which cost less than $1,000. They even designed and built their own source of propulsion-a lightweight gasoline engine. When they started the engine on December 17, the airplane pulsated wildly before taking off. The plane managed to stay aloft for 12 seconds, however, and it flew 120 feet.

By 1905, the Wrights had perfected the first airplane that could turn, circle, and remain airborne for half an hour at a time. Others had flown in balloons and hang gliders, but the Wright brothers were the first to build a full-size machine that could fly under its own power. As the contributors to one of the most outstanding engineering achievements in history, the Wright brothers are accurately called the fathers of aviation.

The idea of flying an aircraft was _________ to some people.

Paragraph: Many great inventions are initially greeted with ridicule and disbelief. The invention of the airplane was no exception. Although many people who heard about the first powered flight on December 17, 1903 were excited and impressed, others reacted with peals of laughter. The idea of flying an aircraft was repulsive to some people. Such people called Wilbur and Orville Wright, the inventors of the first flying machine, impulsive fools. Negative reactions, however, did not stop the Wrights. Impelled by their desire to succeed, they continued their experiments in aviation.

Orville and Wilbur Wright had always had a compelling interest in aeronautics and mechanics. As young boys they earned money by making and selling kites and mechanical toys. Later, they designed a newspaper-folding machine, built a printing press, and operated a bicycle-repair shop. In 1896, when they read about the death of Otto Lilienthal, the brothers' interest in flight grew into a compulsion.

Lilienthal, a pioneer in hang-gliding, had controlled his gliders by shifting his body in the desired direction. This idea was repellent to the Wright brothers, however, and they searched for more efficient methods to control the balance of airborne vehicles. In 1900 and 1901, the Wrights tested numerous gliders and developed control techniques. The brothers' inability to obtain enough lift power for the gliders almost led them to abandon their efforts.

After further study, the Wright brothers concluded that the published tables of air pressure on curved surfaces must be wrong. They set up a wind tunnel and began a series of experiments with model wings. Because of their efforts, the old tables were repealed in time and replaced by the first reliable figures for air pressure on curved surfaces. This work, in turn, made it possible for the brothers to design a machine that would fly. In 1903 the Wrights built their first airplane, which cost less than $1,000. They even designed and built their own source of propulsion-a lightweight gasoline engine. When they started the engine on December 17, the airplane pulsated wildly before taking off. The plane managed to stay aloft for 12 seconds, however, and it flew 120 feet.

By 1905, the Wrights had perfected the first airplane that could turn, circle, and remain airborne for half an hour at a time. Others had flown in balloons and hang gliders, but the Wright brothers were the first to build a full-size machine that could fly under its own power. As the contributors to one of the most outstanding engineering achievements in history, the Wright brothers are accurately called the fathers of aviation.

People thought that the Wright brothers had ________

Paragraph: Many great inventions are initially greeted with ridicule and disbelief. The invention of the airplane was no exception. Although many people who heard about the first powered flight on December 17, 1903 were excited and impressed, others reacted with peals of laughter. The idea of flying an aircraft was repulsive to some people. Such people called Wilbur and Orville Wright, the inventors of the first flying machine, impulsive fools. Negative reactions, however, did not stop the Wrights. Impelled by their desire to succeed, they continued their experiments in aviation.

Orville and Wilbur Wright had always had a compelling interest in aeronautics and mechanics. As young boys they earned money by making and selling kites and mechanical toys. Later, they designed a newspaper-folding machine, built a printing press, and operated a bicycle-repair shop. In 1896, when they read about the death of Otto Lilienthal, the brothers' interest in flight grew into a compulsion.

Lilienthal, a pioneer in hang-gliding, had controlled his gliders by shifting his body in the desired direction. This idea was repellent to the Wright brothers, however, and they searched for more efficient methods to control the balance of airborne vehicles. In 1900 and 1901, the Wrights tested numerous gliders and developed control techniques. The brothers' inability to obtain enough lift power for the gliders almost led them to abandon their efforts.

After further study, the Wright brothers concluded that the published tables of air pressure on curved surfaces must be wrong. They set up a wind tunnel and began a series of experiments with model wings. Because of their efforts, the old tables were repealed in time and replaced by the first reliable figures for air pressure on curved surfaces. This work, in turn, made it possible for the brothers to design a machine that would fly. In 1903 the Wrights built their first airplane, which cost less than $1,000. They even designed and built their own source of propulsion-a lightweight gasoline engine. When they started the engine on December 17, the airplane pulsated wildly before taking off. The plane managed to stay aloft for 12 seconds, however, and it flew 120 feet.

By 1905, the Wrights had perfected the first airplane that could turn, circle, and remain airborne for half an hour at a time. Others had flown in balloons and hang gliders, but the Wright brothers were the first to build a full-size machine that could fly under its own power. As the contributors to one of the most outstanding engineering achievements in history, the Wright brothers are accurately called the fathers of aviation.

The Wrights' interest in flight grew into a ________.

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
The world dismisses curiosity by calling it idle, or mere idle curiosity – even though curious persons are seldom idle. Parents do their best to extinguish curiosity in their children because it makes life difficult to be faced every day with a string of unanswerable questions about what makes fire hot or why grass grows. Children whose curiosity survives parental discipline are invited to join our university. Within the university, they go on asking their questions and trying to find the answers. In the eyes of a scholar, that is mainly what a university is for. Some of the questions that scholars ask seem to the world to be scarcely worth asking, let alone answering. They ask questions too minute and specialized for you and me to understand without years of explanation. If the world inquires one of them why he wants to know the answer to a particular question, he may say, especially if he is a scientist, that the answer will, in some obscure way, make possible a new machine or weapon or gadget. He talks that way because he knows that the world understands and respects utility. But to you who are now part of the university, he will say that he wants to know the answer, simply because he does not know it. The way a mountain climber wants to climb a mountain simply because it is there. Similarly, a historian when asked by outsiders why he studies history may come out with the argument that he has learned to repeat on such occasions, something about the knowledge of the past, making it possible to understand the present and mold the future. But if you really want to know why a historian studies the past, the answer is much simpler: something happened, and he would like to know what. All this does not mean that the answers which scholars find to their questions have no consequences. They may have enormous consequences, but these seldom form the reason for asking the question or pursuing the answers. It is true that scholars can be put to work answering questions for the sake of the consequences, as thousands are working now, for example, in search of a cure for cancer. But this is not the primary function of the scholar, for the consequences are usually subordinate to the satisfaction of curiosity.
Common people consider some of the questions asked by scholars as unimportant

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
The world dismisses curiosity by calling it idle, or mere idle curiosity – even though curious persons are seldom idle. Parents do their best to extinguish curiosity in their children because it makes life difficult to be faced every day with a string of unanswerable questions about what makes fire hot or why grass grows. Children whose curiosity survives parental discipline are invited to join our university. Within the university, they go on asking their questions and trying to find the answers. In the eyes of a scholar, that is mainly what a university is for. Some of the questions that scholars ask seem to the world to be scarcely worth asking, let alone answering. They ask questions too minute and specialized for you and me to understand without years of explanation. If the world inquires one of them why he wants to know the answer to a particular question, he may say, especially if he is a scientist, that the answer will, in some obscure way, make possible a new machine or weapon or gadget. He talks that way because he knows that the world understands and respects utility. But to you who are now part of the university, he will say that he wants to know the answer, simply because he does not know it. The way a mountain climber wants to climb a mountain simply because it is there. Similarly, a historian when asked by outsiders why he studies history may come out with the argument that he has learned to repeat on such occasions, something about the knowledge of the past, making it possible to understand the present and mold the future. But if you really want to know why a historian studies the past, the answer is much simpler: something happened, and he would like to know what. All this does not mean that the answers which scholars find to their questions have no consequences. They may have enormous consequences, but these seldom form the reason for asking the question or pursuing the answers. It is true that scholars can be put to work answering questions for the sake of the consequences, as thousands are working now, for example, in search of a cure for cancer. But this is not the primary function of the scholar, for the consequences are usually subordinate to the satisfaction of curiosity.
In the statement 'that is mainly what a university is for', 'that' refers to

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
The world dismisses curiosity by calling it idle, or mere idle curiosity – even though curious persons are seldom idle. Parents do their best to extinguish curiosity in their children because it makes life difficult to be faced every day with a string of unanswerable questions about what makes fire hot or why grass grows. Children whose curiosity survives parental discipline are invited to join our university. Within the university, they go on asking their questions and trying to find the answers. In the eyes of a scholar, that is mainly what a university is for. Some of the questions that scholars ask seem to the world to be scarcely worth asking, let alone answering. They ask questions too minute and specialized for you and me to understand without years of explanation. If the world inquires one of them why he wants to know the answer to a particular question, he may say, especially if he is a scientist, that the answer will, in some obscure way, make possible a new machine or weapon or gadget. He talks that way because he knows that the world understands and respects utility. But to you who are now part of the university, he will say that he wants to know the answer, simply because he does not know it. The way a mountain climber wants to climb a mountain simply because it is there. Similarly, a historian when asked by outsiders why he studies history may come out with the argument that he has learned to repeat on such occasions, something about the knowledge of the past, making it possible to understand the present and mold the future. But if you really want to know why a historian studies the past, the answer is much simpler: something happened, and he would like to know what. All this does not mean that the answers which scholars find to their questions have no consequences. They may have enormous consequences, but these seldom form the reason for asking the question or pursuing the answers. It is true that scholars can be put to work answering questions for the sake of the consequences, as thousands are working now, for example, in search of a cure for cancer. But this is not the primary function of the scholar, for the consequences are usually subordinate to the satisfaction of curiosity.
According to the passage the general public respects