CAT 2024 Slot 3 VARC Question & Solution

Reading ComprehensionMedium

Passage

The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.

There is a group in the space community who view the solar system not as an opportunity to expand human potential but as a nature preserve, forever the provenance of an elite group of scientists and their sanitary robotic probes. These planetary protection advocates [call] for avoiding “harmful contamination” of celestial bodies. Under this regime, NASA incurs great expense sterilizing robotic probes in order to prevent the contamination of entirely theoretical biospheres ...

Transporting bacteria would matter if Mars were the vital world once imagined by astronomers who mistook optical illusions for canals. Nobody wants to expose Martians to measles, but sadly, robotic exploration reveals a bleak, rusted landscape, lacking oxygen and flooded with radiation ready to sterilize any Earthly microbes. Simple life might exist underground, or down at the bottom of a deep canyon, but it has been very hard to find with robots. . . . The upsides from human exploration and development of Mars clearly outweigh the welfare of purely speculative Martian fungi ...

The other likely targets of human exploration, development, and settlement, our moon and the asteroids, exist in a desiccated, radiation-soaked realm of hard vacuum and extreme temperature variations that would kill nearly anything. It’s also important to note that many international competitors will ignore the demands of these protection extremists in any case. For example, China recently sent a terrarium to the moon and germinated a plant seed—with, unsurprisingly, no protest from its own scientific community. In contrast, when it was recently revealed that a researcher had surreptitiously smuggled super-resilient microscopic tardigrades aboard the ill-fated Israeli Beresheet lunar probe, a firestorm was unleashed within the space community ...

NASA’s previous human exploration efforts made no serious attempt at sterility, with little notice. As the Mars expert Robert Zubrin noted in the National Review, U.S. lunar landings did not leave the campsites cleaner than they found it. Apollo’s bacteria-infested litter included bags of feces. Forcing NASA’s proposed Mars exploration to do better, scrubbing everything and hauling out all the trash, would destroy NASA’s human exploration budget and encroach on the agency’s other directorates, too. Getting future astronauts off Mars is enough of a challenge, without trying to tote weeks of waste along as well.

A reasonable compromise is to continue on the course laid out by the U.S. government and the National Research Council, which proposed a system of zones on Mars, some for science only, some for habitation, and some for resource exploitation. This approach minimizes contamination, maximizes scientific exploration ... Mars presents a stark choice of diverging human futures. We can turn inward, pursuing ever more limited futures while we await whichever natural or manmade disaster will eradicate our species and life on Earth. Alternatively, we can choose to propel our biosphere further into the solar system, simultaneously protecting our home planet and providing a backup plan for the only life we know exists in the universe. Are the lives on Earth worth less than some hypothetical microbe lurking under Martian rocks?

Question 1

The author is unlikely to disagree with any of the following EXCEPT:

the proposal for a zonal segregation of the Martian landscape into regions for different purposes.

that while NASA’s earlier missions were not ideal in their approach to space contamination, they likely did no grave damage.

space contamination should be minimised until the possibility of life on the astronomical body being explored is ruled out.

the exorbitant costs of continuing to keep the space environment pristine may be unsustainable.

Solution:

The phrase “unlikely to disagree + EXCEPT” can seem tricky to interpret. In simple terms, the question requires us to find a statement the author will disagree with. Let us inspect the choices -

Option A: The author supports the proposal for zonal segregation as a reasonable compromise, balancing scientific exploration with human settlement.

Option B: The author agrees that NASA’s earlier missions did not prioritise contamination but implies they caused no significant harm.

Option C: This viewpoint reflects a cautious approach to space exploration. The author dismisses concerns about hypothetical extraterrestrial life as speculative and prioritises human exploration and development over minimising contamination. Therefore, he’s likely to disagree with this position.

Option D: In the passage, the author argues that the costs of maintaining strict planetary protection measures are excessive and could undermine future exploration efforts. This is consistent with his stance.

Hence, Option C is the best choice.

Question 2

The author mentions all of the following reasons to dismiss concerns about contaminating Mars EXCEPT:

the lack of evidence of living organisms on Mars makes possible contamination from earthly microbes a moot point.

efforts to contain contamination on Mars are likely to be derailed as competitor countries may not follow similar restrictions.

the use of similar probes on astronomical bodies like the moon have had little effect on the environment.

earlier explorations have already contaminated pristine space environments.

Solution:

The passage discusses the debate surrounding planetary protection policies, particularly the concerns about contaminating Mars with Earth-based microbes. The author argues against these concerns, citing several reasons why the risk of contamination should not hinder human exploration and development of Mars. These reasons include:

the lack of evidence for life on Mars (describes Mars as a “bleak, rusted landscape” with no confirmed life) [Option A]
the disregard for such protocols by international competitors (China’s lenient approach to planetary protection) [Option B]
the historical precedent of contamination from earlier human missions (Apollo missions left waste on the Moon) [Option D]

On the other hand, Option C is not presented as a valid reason. The author does not specifically argue that probes have had “little effect” on the Moon's environment but instead focuses on human waste and contamination from earlier human missions, not robotic probes.

Question 3

The author’s overall tone in the first paragraph can be described as

sceptical about the excessive efforts to sanitise planets where life has not yet been proven to exist.

equivocal about the reasons extended by the group of scientists seeking to limit space exploration.

indifferent to the elitism of a few scientists aiming to corner space exploration.

approving of the amount of money NASA spends to restrict the spread of contamination in space.

Solution:

The first paragraph critiques the stringent planetary protection policies advocated by a group of scientists who aim to prevent biological contamination of celestial bodies. The author portrays these efforts as excessive, particularly given the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life, and highlights the significant financial burden these measures place on space agencies like NASA. Option A accurately reflects this scepticism, as the author questions the need to sterilize planets where life has not been proven to exist.

Option B is incorrect because the author is not equivocal (i.e., ambiguous or undecided); instead, he expresses a clear stance against these strict protocols. Option C is also inaccurate, as the author is not indifferent to elitism but rather critiques the scientists’ restrictive approach. Similarly, Option D can be eliminated because the author does not approve of NASA's spending on sterilization but views it as an unnecessary expense.

Question 4

The contrasting reactions to the Chinese and Israeli “contaminations” of lunar space

are valid as the contamination of the lunar environment from animal sources is far greater than from plants.

are evidence of China’s reasonable approach towards space contamination.

indicate that national scientists may have different sensitivities to issues of biosphere protection.

reveal global biases prevalent in attitudes towards different countries.

Solution:

The passage highlights contrasting reactions to two instances of potential contamination of the lunar environment: China’s germination of a plant seed on the Moon, which elicited little controversy, and Israel’s accidental release of tardigrades aboard the Beresheet probe, which sparked significant backlash within the space community. This contrast underscores differences in how national or regional scientific communities respond to issues of planetary protection. Option C most closely reflects this idea.

The passage does not suggest that contamination from animals is inherently more harmful than from plants, as suggested in Option A. Similarly, Option B inaccurately implies that the passage endorses China’s approach as inherently “reasonable,” which it does not. Option D diverges a bit from the discussion by emphasising global biases against specific countries, but the passage provides no evidence of such biases, focusing instead on scientific reactions.