Part 5. For questions 99-108. (1.3 points - 0.

1/each)
Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow it.
A POPULAR ENLIGHTENMENT
Angry nerds and pro-science bloggers are doing a better job than scientists at defending reason. Long
may it continue, says Nicoli Nattrass
Alternative medicine has never enjoyed such popularity and respect. Therapies once dubbed
"pseudoscience” or "quackery" are now typically referred to as “alternative”, “complementary" or “holistic”.
Practices that used to circulate on the fringes are now accepted as mainstream. The rise of alternative
medicine poses a problem for defenders of science. Many see the fightback as a lost cause. I don't. I believe
that the factors that allow quackery to prosper can and are being harnessed for a counterrevolution in
defence of science.
In the past, those exploring alternative lifestyles joined groups of like-minded people and subscribed to
countercultural magazines. They now participate in online communities and surf the internet, where they
encounter alternative websites by the dozen, but also come across mainstream scientific viewpoints.
The web has proved to be a crucial mobilising instrument for pro-science activists. When the British
Chiropractic Association sued writer Simon Singh for libel, his supporters used Twitter and Facebook to
keep abreast of the case. A community of pro-science activists and bloggers has also sprung up. Their
actions are not merely intellectual. Singh’s supporters flooded the British Chiropractic Association with
complaints about individual chiropractors, all of which required investigation.
As British activist and physician Ben Goldacre wrote in 2009: "A ragged band of bloggers from all walks
of life has, to my mind, done a better job of subjecting an entire industry's claims to meaningful, public,
scientific scrutiny than the media, the industry itself, and even its own regulator. It’s strange this task has
fallen to them, but I’m glad someone is doing it, and they do it very, very well indeed.”
In other words, the defence of science is increasingly being undertaken by members of the public. Such
defence was once conducted primarily by scholars; today the battle is often fought at an individual level via
cut-and- thrust debate in blog postings.
This social phenomenon of “angry nerds" and "guerrilla bloggers”, dedicated to defending evidence-
based medicine and challenging quackery, is important. Rather than relying on scientists to defend the
boundaries of science, we are seeing a much more socially embedded struggle - a popular enlightenment
project.
Can such a project work? Reasserting goals of progress through reason and evidence is one thing, but
whether it has any effect remains an open question. How easy is it to persuade people through factual
corrections?
The answer seems to depend a great deal on the individual. For example, AIDS deniers are generally
impervious to corrective evidence. They are impossible to argue with, and indeed it may even be
counterproductive to do so. According to recent research, providing people who are ideologically committed
to a particular view with incongruent information can backfire by causing them to dig their heels in and
support their original argument even more strongly.
This problem is a general one. A substantial body of psychological research suggests that humans tend to
seek out and evaluate information that reinforces their existing views. The digital revolution has exacerbated
the problem because, as journalist Farhad Manjoo writes, you can now "watch, listen to and read what you
want, whenever you want; seek out and discuss, in exhaustive and insular detail, the kind of news that
pleases you; and indulge your political, social or scientific theories... among people who feel exactly the
same way”
I believe such pessimism goes too far, though. The boundary between mainstream and alternative
knowledge may have become more permeable, but the world has yet to enter what political scientist Michael
Barkun of Syracuse University in New York calls complete epistemological pluralism. The fact that quacks
and AIDS deniers keep trying to get the imprimatur of science for their discredited ideas, by trying to
publish their work in peer- reviewed journals, for example, speaks to the continued public prestige and
power of science.
Furthermore, their support base is far from fixed in stone. Some people are so committed to
unconventional views that they cannot be moved, but they are the exception. People motivated to explore the
cultic milieu- that fluid countercultural space in which alternative therapies and conspiracy theories flourish
- are open to changing their minds.
In his seminal work on the cultic milieu, sociologist Colin Campbell of York University, UK. stresses
that it is not a space where firm opinions are held, but rather a "society of seekers”- people who "do not
necessarily cease seeking when a revealed truth is offered to them”.
This creates the space for pro-science activists to compete for attention. When they do so, the internet
becomes a tougher place for people to sequestrate themselves in a comfortable cocoon of the like-minded.
This is good news for the enlightenment project. People may be biased in favour of interpretations that align
with their prejudices but this does not mean that they just believe what they like. Faced with information of
sufficient quantity or clarity, people do change their minds.
So the challenge for the pro-science movement is to keep an active and credible online presence. The web
is an anarchic space where defence of science ranges from ridicule and banter to serious discussion about
findings along with links to scientific articles and reports. It looks, in other words, like the space that used to
be the preserve of the cultic milieu - but with greater informational depth. The weapons of science and
reason are still very much in contention.
For questions 96-101, choose the best answer (A, B, C or D) according to the text. Write your answers
A, B, C or D) in the corresponding numbered boxes.

86. In the first paragraph, the writer is in dispute with scientists who______.
A. continue to write alternative medicine off as insignificant
B. have themselves espoused the notion of alternative medicine
C. are of the opinion that it’s nugatory to take issue with assertions made by alternative
medicine
D. use pejorative language when alluding to alternative medicine
87. What point does the writer make about scientific discourses on blogs?
A. It has undermined the position of those who would endorse science.
B. It has emboldened people to become too heartfelt about scientific bones of contention.
C. It has had a propensity to give too much credence to unscientific hypotheses.
D. It has insinuated more laypeople are partaking in scientific debates.
88. The quote from Fahad Manjoo elucidates the point that the Internet______.
A. beguiles people with very fixed convictions
B. can reinforce people's existing ideologies and prejudices
C. prompts people to take the beliefs of others more seriously
D. enables people to check out the facts behind established theories
89. The writer insinuates that proponents of discredited ideas in alternative medicines______.
A. are not always consistent in the arguments they bring forward
B. are of the view that they are treated inequitably by the scientific circle
C. remain keen to secure the approval of the scientific community
D. incline to disregard the antithetical corroboration provided by scientists
90. The writer refers to the work of Cole Campbell to substantiate his view that______.
A. certain groups of people will never be convinced by scientific theories
B. cogent arguments have the power to change people's opinions
C. scientists themselves can learn from sophisticated wrangles with laypeople
D. there are very few absolute truths in the world of science
 91. In the final paragraph, the writer accentuates the need for pro-scientists to______.
A. associate any deliberations on the internet with pertinent research particulars
B. elude getting into heated tempestuous discussions with non-scientists on the internet
C. follow up vigorous discussions on the internet with authorised proceedings
D. maintain the integrity and exposure of scientific stances on the internet

Your answer here:

96. ........................... 98. ........................... 100. ...........................

97. ........................... 99. ........................... 101. ...........................

For questions 102-105, complete the following sentences. Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS
from the passage for each answer. Write your answers in the corresponding numbered spaces.

92. The profession of complementary medicine that erstwhile disseminated ______ is currently
given credence to as conformist.
93. Penetrable as the cut-off point between conventional and non-standard conceptions may
have become, society has not been primed for ______.
94. ______, an adaptable and unconventional environment which pro-scientists are encouraged to
scrutinise, makes the project more propitious.
95. The scientific illumination undertaking can be countervailing in the case of exposing ______ to
those who have dedicated themselves to a specific stance or have unwonted perceptions.

Your answer here:

102. .................................................

103. .................................................

104. .................................................

105. .................................................
For questions 106-108, in the numbered spaces on your answer sheet, write:
TRUE if the statement agrees with the information.
FALSE if the statement contradicts the information.
NOT GIVEN if the information is not given in the passage.

96. In an orthodox way, recent pro-science movements are increasingly

represented by nonaccredited “combatants”.
97. The British Chiropractic Association faced castigatory remonstrance from
Singh’s advocates after accusing him of vilification. 
98. The dynamic countercultural grounds for pro-scientists can reduce the
prospects of individuals aligning themselves with congruent viewpoints.

Page 4 of 4