You are on page 1of 5

Altruism, according to the passage, is a behavior pattern characterized by

sacrifice - the individual performing it gains nothing, only benefits others.
With examples, the professor challenges the assumption that altruism is
"abound", conveyed by the reading passage.
According to the professor, one recent study about the meerkat brought new
insights about into the assumption that these animals are utterly altruistic.
The study showed evidence that the sentinel eats before standing guard that is, it doesn't go without food, sacrificing itself for the being of the herd,
as the passage suggest. Also, because the sentinel is the first to see the
possible predator, it is the first to have the opportunity to scape. The other
animals are actually in more danger than the sentinel. When the guard
emits the signal of danger, the action that follows is likely to attract the
predator's attention, therefore leaving the animals on the spotlight to be
preys.
The example about human beings given by the professor also contradicts
the reading passage. There might be an essentially extrinsic motivation in
the action of donating an organ to someone who needs it. The donator will
definitely benefit from the appreciation that he or she is going to receive
from other human beings. So, the action could be beneficial for the donator
as well and could be performed solely with it in mind.
To sum up, the lecture contradicts greatly the reading passage. In some
situations, altruism may not be the main motivation both for animals and
humans.

According to the passage, the appearance of professors in television, which
is becoming increasingly common, is something beneficial for the professor
themselves, as well as for the universities and for the public. The lecture
greatly challenges this claim.
The passage argues that the reputations of TV professors are enhanced
because they are seen as authorities in their fields by a wider audience.
Conversely, according to the lecturer, by appearing on TV, the professor's
reputation may actually be harmed. Peers might perceive him or her as not
being a serious scholar, but rather someone who only wants to entertain
people, not educate them. As result, the professor might not be invited to
take part in some meetings or events, and could also not be granted money
for research.
The other point that the lecture conveys is that professors lose a lot a time
by appearing on TV. They have to figure out what they're going to say,
reahearse it and maybe travel to appear on TV. The time he spends doing
this is subtracted from the time the professor has to carry out research,

TV stations are solely interested in the professor's academic title. the universities and the students are not benefiting from these appearances.teach or advise students. analisyes of the pigments of the painting using X-rays have shown the luxurious fur collar that the servant woman is wearing was actually added on top of the original painting. The information that he ends up being broadcast is not in-depth information and doesn't differ much from the kind of information that a reporter (who has done the homework) would give. Second. Last but not least. would increase the value of the painting. Finally. 100 years later. according to the lecturer. the use of light and shadow was realistic. According to the reading passage. it is questionable whether appearing on TV has really anything of beneficial for professor. First. in Rembrant. the painting "Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet" could not have been painted by Rembrant. So. the glued wood panel was actually added to enlarge the painting and make it more valuable. Also. for their universities and for the general public. originally. therefore. contrary to the belief of the passage. analyses of the original pieces of wood show . it was the changes in the painting that introduced the "error". the woman was wearing a white collar that illuminated her face. Presenting findings from a new study. So. Because of the above reasons. the lecturer challenges what is presented in the reading passage and therefore affirms that "Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet" is a Rembrant work. so that the woman would look more aristocratic and this. This solves the apparent "inconsistensy" of the way the servant is dressed in the painting. the contradiction found in the fact the woman's face is illuminated by the dark full collar she is wearing is solved if we take into account the finding that. Three problems support this claim: the way the woman in the portrait is dressed. not even the public is benefiting. the disposition of light and shadow in the painting and the wood panel made of glued pieces of wood on its back. These problems are in contradiction with what we know about Rembrandt's mastery and style. the lecturer mentions that.

In the lecture. the grading of subjective tests. consequently. which is important for all subjects. . in the passage. that is nothing wrong with memorizing things – actually. essays also stimulate the development of writing skills. the professor starts by claiming that he has nothing against essay writing. Both types have their places in secondary schools. fill in the blanks. The lecturer acknowledges that objetive tests are easier to construct. for some situations. but then presents two drawbacks of subjective tests and some benefits of objective ones. a combination of both methods of assessments is more effective than the use of one of them alone. there are two main types of tests used in secondary education: one type is the objective test (multiple choice. the passage says that essay tests take less time to be prepared than objetive ones and this is of course beneficial for busy teachers. According to the reading passage. Finally. Also. on the other hand. requires the teacher to go through them at the same time. whereas objetive tests merely assess the student’s capacity to memorize information. The author of the reading takes a stand in favor of the latter type of assessment for three reasons. Second. we do need to memorize basic facts and information.it take less time and could even be done by a machine. etc. essays are said to test the capacity of analysis and therefore a higher level of understanding. First.that they belong to the same tree from which another panel for a Rembrant painting was made. and the other is the subjetive test. assessing someone through his writing could me misleading since good writers might end up having good grades even though they have poor knowledge on the subject they are writing about. which is not always convinient. at all levels. to be fair. more aligned with the type of tasks students will confront themselves in real life. but points out that essays. Subjective tests are. Besides being more time consuming. challeging the conception presented in the reading passage. According the him. true-or-false. Objetive tests are a lot easier to grade . in which students are required to write essays about a certain topic. The professor concludes his explanation by saying that. are much more difficult to grade.).

in a clean and comfortable space. the discovery of new drugs is possible without animal testing. According to her. According to the passage. The professor disagrees with the idea that there are not good substitutes by saying that medicines could be tested directly in human tissues cultivated in labs. the professor strongly opposes vivisection and conveys arguments to support her opinion that contradict the claims of the reading passage. for example. using anesthesia and maintaining animals healthy. There are also computer simulations and other alternatives. But at the heart of the author’s argument is the claim that there is no good replacement for vivisection. reduces pain in humans. The author acknowledges that it is natural to be concerned about how animals are treated in such experiments. the use of animals in medical research. Finally. The morphine. the professor says that animals are not treated in “as humanly as possible” in medical experiments. it is immoral to risk human lives in an experiment that could be carried out with non-humans. besides. but says that it is the reduction of human suffering that should worry us more. i.e. in environments with toxic chemicals. She has already been to many labs and witnessed animals being abused and facing terrible diseases. as proves the example of findings of aspirin and also of a drug used to treating malaria. . sometimes new drugs would never have been used if they were limited to animal testing. Also. In the lecture. animal suffering could be kept to a minimum.The reading passage takes a strong stand in favor of vivisection. The other available techniques are not as effective and. but stimulates it in cats.

The professor concludes by saying that vivisection. is immoral because animals obviously have not consented to take part. no matter the benefits it may bring. .