a. Ethical concerns surrounding AI [2]

AI raises several ethical concerns. Systems trained on historical data can encode and amplify bias, causing unfair treatment in hiring, lending or policing. AI depends on mass collection of personal data, which threatens privacy. When an automated system causes harm, accountability is unclear: the developer, the user or the organisation deploying it may be responsible. AI can also displace jobs and concentrate wealth and power in a few technology firms.

b. Mitigating bias in AI systems [2]

Bias can be reduced by training on diverse, representative and carefully audited datasets, and by testing models for unequal outcomes across groups before and after deployment. Developers should use fairness-aware algorithms, keep humans in the loop for important decisions, and employ diverse development teams. Regular independent audits and transparent reporting of errors help correct bias that appears over time.

c. Steps for ethical development and use of AI [2]

• Set clear laws, regulations and ethical guidelines for developing and deploying AI.
• Make systems transparent and explainable, so decisions can be questioned.
• Protect personal data through consent, security and data-protection rules.
• Assign clear responsibility and accountability for AI decisions.
• Keep human oversight in sensitive areas such as health, justice and finance.
• Train developers in ethics and educate the public about AI.

d. Major argument of the passage [4]

The passage text is not available with this question, so only a general summary can be given. The central argument in discussions of this kind is that artificial intelligence offers great benefits in efficiency, healthcare, education and business, but these benefits come with serious ethical risks such as bias, loss of privacy, unclear accountability and job displacement. These risks are not merely technical but social, because AI reflects the data and values of the people who build it. The conclusion drawn is that AI must be developed and used responsibly, through fair data, transparency, regulation and human oversight, so that technology serves society rather than harming it.

a. Impact of human activities on the environment (with reference to Gordon Rattray Taylor's "Pollution and Super-pollution")

Gordon Rattray Taylor, in his essay "Pollution and Super-pollution," argues that human beings have become the most destructive force on the planet, not through deliberate malice but through sheer numbers, affluence, and technological power. He distinguishes between pollution — the ordinary, tolerable contamination that nature can absorb — and super-pollution, the massive, often irreversible poisoning caused by modern industrial society. The essay's central claim is that man has broken the natural cycles that once recycled waste, and the consequences are now global.

1. Population growth and rising consumption. Taylor points out that pollution is a function of two variables: the number of people and the amount each person consumes. A small population with simple needs produces waste that nature can handle. But a growing population, each member demanding more goods, energy, and comfort, multiplies the burden. He notes that a single modern city can generate more waste in a day than an entire medieval kingdom produced in a year. The problem is not just more people but more demanding people.

2. Industrial and chemical pollution. The essay gives specific examples of super-pollution. Factories release sulphur dioxide and other gases that create acid rain, killing forests and lakes. Chemical plants discharge mercury and other heavy metals into rivers; Taylor cites the classic case of Minamata Bay in Japan, where mercury poisoning from industrial effluent crippled and killed hundreds of people who ate contaminated fish. Pesticides like DDT accumulate in the food chain, thinning the eggshells of birds and threatening entire species. These are not accidents but the normal by-products of an economy that treats air, water, and soil as free dumping grounds.

3. Radioactive and thermal pollution. Taylor warns about radioactive waste from nuclear power and weapons testing. Unlike ordinary garbage, radioactive isotopes remain dangerous for thousands of years, and no safe method of disposal exists. He also discusses thermal pollution: power plants and factories discharge heated water into rivers, raising temperatures and destroying aquatic life that cannot tolerate the change. These forms of pollution are "super" because they cannot be undone by natural processes within a human lifetime.

4. Destruction of natural cycles. In nature, waste from one organism becomes food for another. Carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen circulate in balanced cycles. Human industry, however, produces materials that nature has never seen — plastics, synthetic chemicals, and persistent toxins — and releases them faster than any cycle can absorb. Taylor compares this to a clock that has been overwound: the mechanism that once kept the environment stable is now jammed. The result is a buildup of poisons in the air, water, and living tissue, including our own.

5. Consequences and the need for action. The essay concludes that super-pollution threatens not just wildlife but human health and survival. It causes cancer, lung disease, birth defects, and the slow poisoning of the food chain. Taylor argues that technology must be redirected: instead of treating nature as an enemy to be conquered, we must design industrial processes that mimic natural cycles, recycle waste, and reduce consumption. He calls for international cooperation, since pollution ignores national borders. The choice, he says, is between a poisoned planet and a deliberate, planned restraint on human activity.

In short, Taylor's essay is a warning that human activities — population growth, industrial expansion, chemical use, and nuclear technology — have pushed pollution beyond nature's capacity to heal. The impact is global, cumulative, and potentially irreversible, and only a conscious change in how we produce and consume can prevent it.

b. Fundamental limits on the efficiency of solar energy conversion (with reference to H. A. Bethe's "The Cost of Solar Heat")

H. A. Bethe, in "The Cost of Solar Heat," examines solar energy as a potential replacement for fossil fuels and concludes that while sunlight is abundant, there are fundamental physical and economic limits on how efficiently it can be converted into useful energy. These limits arise from thermodynamics, the nature of light, and the economics of collection and storage.

1. The thermodynamic (Carnot) limit. Any device that converts heat into work is bound by the Carnot efficiency: $\eta = 1 - \frac{T_c}{T_h}$ where (T_c) is the cold reservoir temperature and (T_h) the hot reservoir temperature (both in kelvin). Solar collectors typically reach (T_h) of only a few hundred degrees Celsius, while (T_c) is near ambient (about 300 K). Even with (T_h = 600\ \text{K}) and (T_c = 300\ \text{K}), the maximum efficiency is only (1 - 300/600 = 50%). In practice, losses reduce this to 20–30%. Bethe emphasizes that no engine can exceed this limit, no matter how well engineered.

2. The spectral (band-gap) limit for photovoltaic cells. A solar cell can only absorb photons whose energy exceeds its band gap. Photons with less energy pass through unused; photons with much more energy lose the excess as heat. For a single-junction silicon cell (band gap about 1.1 eV), the theoretical maximum is the Shockley–Queisser limit, roughly 33% under standard sunlight. Bethe notes that most of the solar spectrum is therefore wasted, and multi-junction cells, while better, are far more expensive.

3. The dilution and intermittency of sunlight. Solar energy arrives at the Earth's surface at only about (1\ \text{kW/m}^2) at noon on a clear day — a very dilute form of energy compared with a fossil fuel flame. To collect useful amounts, large areas are needed. A 1 GW power plant would require tens of square kilometres of collectors. Moreover, sunlight is intermittent: it is unavailable at night and reduced by clouds. Storage or backup is essential, and both add cost and reduce overall system efficiency.

4. Collection, transmission, and storage losses. Even if conversion were perfect, energy is lost in wiring, in batteries, and in converting direct current to alternating current. Bethe points out that each stage — collection, conversion, storage, transmission — subtracts from the total. A chain of 90% efficiencies at four stages gives only (0.9^4 \approx 66%) overall. Real systems do worse.

5. Economic limits. Bethe's deeper argument is that the cost of solar heat, not just its physical efficiency, limits its use. The capital cost of collectors, land, and storage must be recovered over the plant's lifetime. Because solar energy is dilute and intermittent, the cost per kilowatt-hour remains high compared with fossil fuels unless subsidised or unless fossil fuel prices rise sharply. He concludes that solar energy can contribute, but only if we accept lower efficiency and higher cost, or if technology improves dramatically.

In summary, Bethe identifies four fundamental limits: the Carnot limit on heat engines, the band-gap limit on photovoltaic cells, the dilute and intermittent nature of sunlight, and the cumulative losses in collection and storage. These are not engineering failures but physical and economic realities that cap the efficiency of solar energy conversion.

a. Correct order of the sentences:

iii. Bronowski says that man is a part of nature. i. This is the statement which has made Western man lose his self-assurance. iv. He lost his self-assurance because this statement means that man is not unique. v. But man wants to feel unique and immortal. ii. He also wants to feel that he has been, from the beginning, larger than nature.

Paragraph: Bronowski says that man is a part of nature. This is the statement which has made Western man lose his self-assurance. He lost his self-assurance because this statement means that man is not unique. But man wants to feel unique and immortal. He also wants to feel that he has been, from the beginning, larger than nature.

b. Sentences with the correct articles:

i. An atlas will show you the location of the cities you are looking for.

ii. Some people are friendly while others are not.

iii. There was once a beggar who lived in the capital city of Alexander's great empire.

Technological advancements have transformed society and reshaped the way we live. Communication, once limited to letters and landlines, now takes place instantly through smartphones and the internet, allowing people to connect across continents in seconds. Education has become more accessible through online classes, digital libraries and educational apps, so that a student in a remote village can learn from the same resources as one in a city. In health care, machines such as MRI scanners and robotic surgical tools help doctors diagnose and treat diseases more accurately, while telemedicine brings medical advice to places where no specialist is available. Banking, shopping, and government services have also moved online, saving time and effort that people once spent standing in queues. Even the way we work has changed, with remote jobs and video conferences replacing the need to travel to an office every day. Thus, technology has not only made life faster and more convenient but has also changed our habits, our expectations and the very structure of society.

Topic chosen: (a) The impact of climate change on biodiversity

Outline

1. Introduction – Definition of climate change and biodiversity; statement of the link between them.
2. Background – How the climate has changed (greenhouse gases, warming, shifting seasons) and why biodiversity matters.
3. Discussion I – Direct impacts: temperature rise, shifting ranges, phenological mismatch, coral bleaching.
4. Discussion II – Indirect impacts: habitat loss, extreme events, invasive species, extinction risk; feedback on humans.
5. Conclusion – Summary and the need for mitigation plus conservation.

The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity

Climate change refers to the long-term alteration of temperature, rainfall, wind and other atmospheric conditions of the earth, caused mainly by the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Biodiversity, on the other hand, means the variety of life on earth at all levels — genes, species and ecosystems. These two are closely connected: the climate is the basic controller of where plants and animals can live, when they breed and how many of them survive. When the climate changes faster than living things can adjust, biodiversity is disturbed. This essay argues that climate change is today one of the most serious threats to biodiversity, acting both directly on individual species and indirectly through the destruction of habitats and ecological relationships.

The scientific background of this argument is well established. Since the industrial revolution, global average temperature has risen by about 1.1 °C, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that it may reach or cross 1.5 °C within a few decades if emissions are not cut sharply. Warming is uneven: the Himalayas, for example, are heating faster than the global average, and Nepal's snow and glacier cover is shrinking. Rainfall has become more erratic, with longer droughts and heavier single-day downpours. Biodiversity matters because it supplies food, medicine, clean water, pollination, soil fertility and climate regulation. Each species is a node in a web; the loss of one weakens the whole. Because the climate is changing at an unprecedented speed, species cannot evolve or migrate fast enough to keep pace, and this mismatch is the core of the problem.

The most direct impact of climate change is on the physiology and distribution of species. As temperature rises, many organisms move towards the poles or to higher altitudes in search of their original climate. In Nepal, this is seen in the upward shift of treelines and of mosquito and pest species into previously cool hill districts. Species that cannot move — those on mountain tops, in isolated lakes or on small islands — face "climate traps" and may disappear altogether. Timing is also disturbed: plants flower earlier, insects emerge earlier, and migratory birds arrive at the wrong time, so that pollinators and flowers, or birds and their insect food, fall out of step. This is called phenological mismatch. In the oceans, warmer water causes coral bleaching; reefs that support a quarter of all marine species turn white and die. Sex ratios of temperature-dependent reptiles such as turtles are also skewed, threatening reproduction.

Indirect impacts are equally damaging. Climate change intensifies extreme events — floods, landslides, forest fires and cyclones — that destroy habitats in a single season. The 2021 Melamchi flood in Nepal and repeated wildfires in Australia and California are examples. Coral reefs, mangroves and Himalayan grasslands are being degraded, so species lose both home and food. Warmer conditions also allow invasive species and pathogens to spread into new areas, where native species have no defence; amphibian chytrid fungus and bark beetles in pine forests are well-known cases. As ranges shrink and populations fragment, genetic diversity falls, inbreeding increases, and the risk of extinction rises. The IUCN Red List already records over 40,000 species as threatened, and climate change is a contributing factor for many of them. The loss is not only ecological but economic and cultural, because people — especially the poor and indigenous communities — depend directly on forests, fisheries and grazing lands. In this way, the damage to biodiversity returns to human society as food insecurity, loss of livelihood and increased disaster risk.

In conclusion, climate change affects biodiversity both directly, by pushing species beyond their tolerance limits and breaking the timing of their life cycles, and indirectly, by destroying habitats, spreading invasive species and raising extinction risk. The two crises — a warming climate and a vanishing variety of life — are in fact one crisis. Therefore, they must be solved together: by reducing greenhouse gas emissions under international agreements like the Paris Agreement, by protecting and restoring forests, wetlands and coral reefs, by creating corridors so that species can move, and by involving local communities in conservation. Only such combined action can preserve the rich biodiversity on which the survival of humanity itself depends.

(a) Features of the pre-scientific world

• People tried to control events through prayer and humility, not through knowledge of natural laws.
• Power was thought to come from heaven, so it was unreliable: nobody could tell whether a prayer would be heard.
• Power had recognised limits; it was considered impious to ask for too much.
• Faith was said to be able to remove mountains, but no one really believed it.

(b) Gist of the text The passage contrasts two sources of power. Prayer gives uncertain and limited power, whereas science, by acquiring knowledge of natural laws, gives reliable and practically unlimited power. The atomic bomb, which really can remove mountains, shows that scientific power is believed in because it works.

(c) Deductive order Yes, broadly. The passage begins with a general statement that in the scientific world power comes from knowledge of natural laws. It then supports this with general claims (prayer is unreliable and limited; science has no known limits). It ends with a particular illustration, atomic bombs removing mountains, where faith could not. It thus moves from the general principle to the specific example, although the example also works as a rhetorical contrast.

(d) Title "Prayer and Science: Two Kinds of Power" (or "The Power of Science over the Power of Prayer").

(e) Should there be God in a godless universe? This is a matter of personal view. Science explains how the world works and gives us real power over nature, but it does not answer questions of meaning, morality and hope. Many people, in Nepal as elsewhere, find comfort, discipline and a sense of purpose in faith. Since the atomic bomb shows that power without moral direction can be dangerous, I think belief in a moral order, God for believers, is still useful alongside science, and the two need not conflict.

Human beings have been changing the environment ever since they first learnt to farm, build and make fire. In the essay "Pollution and Super Pollution" the author shows that, with growing population and technology, these changes have become so large that they now damage the very surroundings on which life depends.

Ways in which human beings change the environment

1. Pollution of air: Smoke from factories, brick kilns and vehicles, and the burning of coal, wood and oil, fill the air with poisonous gases and dust. Kathmandu's winter smog is an example.
2. Pollution of water: Industrial waste, sewage, chemicals and garbage are thrown into rivers and lakes, as in the Bagmati, making water unfit to drink and killing aquatic life.
3. Pollution of soil: Chemical fertilizers, pesticides, plastics and dumped waste reduce the fertility of land and poison the food chain.
4. Cutting down forests: Forests are cleared for farmland, timber, roads and settlements. This causes soil erosion, landslides, floods and loss of wildlife.
5. Industrialisation and urbanisation: Rapid growth of factories and cities uses up land and resources and produces huge amounts of waste, noise and heat.
6. Overuse of natural resources: Minerals, fuels, water and wildlife are used faster than nature can renew them.
7. Noise and radiation: Machines, traffic and nuclear and atomic activity add noise and dangerous radiation to the environment.
8. Changing climate and the atmosphere: Burning fossil fuels increases carbon dioxide, causing global warming, and some chemicals damage the ozone layer.

Super pollution The author goes beyond ordinary pollution and warns of "super pollution", the most dangerous kind, caused by modern technology, such as nuclear weapons and radioactive and other poisonous wastes. It threatens all life on earth, not only a particular place.

Conclusion Human beings are the only creatures able to change the environment on such a scale, so they are also the only ones who can protect it. This requires controlling population, planting trees, treating waste and using science responsibly.

(b) Major ideas of "Science and Survival" by Barry Commoner, and whether his argument is worth considering

Major ideas of the essay

Barry Commoner's Science and Survival (1966) is a warning about the direction in which modern science and technology are taking human civilisation. Its major ideas are:

1. Science has become a double-edged weapon. Commoner accepts that science has given humanity great power over nature, but he insists that this same power can destroy us. The splitting of the atom and the rise of the chemical industry are his chief examples: the same knowledge that lights cities can annihilate them.

2. The gap between scientific knowledge and social responsibility. Scientists discover and produce new things faster than society can judge whether they are safe. Commoner's famous formulation is that we are now "in a period of grace" — a short time in which we must learn to control the new powers before they control us. Once a mistake is made on a global scale (nuclear fallout, DDT in the food chain), it cannot be undone.

3. The ecological view of nature. Commoner argues that nature is not a collection of separate parts but a single, interlinked system. Anything put into it — pesticides, radioactive waste, chemical fertilisers — travels through air, water, soil and living things and returns to us. He popularised the idea that "everything is connected to everything else," later set out as the first law of ecology.

4. Science must be judged by its social consequences. He rejects the view that science is neutral and that only its "misuse" is harmful. Since scientists themselves create the new technology, they carry a responsibility to foresee its effects and to warn the public. He calls for a science that serves human survival rather than profit or national power.

5. The need for public understanding and political choice. Because the dangers are created by society as a whole, the remedy must also be social. Commoner wants an informed public, honest scientific advice, and democratic decisions about which technologies to develop and which to abandon.

Is his argument worth considering?

Yes. His argument is worth considering, and in fact it is more relevant today than when it was written. Nuclear weapons still exist; climate change, plastic pollution, pesticide residues and industrial accidents such as Bhopal and Chernobyl have proved exactly the kind of "biological mistake" he warned about. His insistence that scientists should think about consequences has led to environmental impact assessment, pollution control laws and the modern ecology movement. His idea of the interconnectedness of nature is now the basis of environmental science.

One may object that Commoner is too pessimistic and that he underrates the benefits of science — medicine, agriculture and communication. He also does not always say clearly who should decide which science is "safe." But these are weaknesses of emphasis, not of substance. His central warning — that knowledge without responsibility is dangerous — remains valid. Therefore his argument deserves serious consideration, especially in a country like Nepal where unplanned development, deforestation and pollution are already causing harm.

(a) Add the correct end punctuations

i. Fingerprints provide clues about person's health**.**

ii. Have you ever been finger-printed**?**

iii. Many people wonder if fingerprints are reliable**.**

iv. We won**!**

v. Children's fingerprints vanish more quickly**.**

(b) Antonyms:

Outline of a Composition on "Students' Protest: Purposeful or Harmful?"

1. Introduction

• Definition of students' protest: an organised expression of disagreement or demand by students.
• Students as the conscious, energetic and future-building section of society.
• Thesis statement: students' protest is purposeful when it is peaceful, issue-based and aimed at correction; it becomes harmful when it turns violent, politically misused or destructive.

2. Students' Protest as Purposeful

• Instrument of social reform: students have led historic movements — the 1979 student movement for democracy in Nepal, the 1990 and 2006 Jana Andolans, the anti-Rana struggles.
• Voice against injustice: raises voice against corruption, price rise, unemployment, educational anomalies and misuse of authority.
• Awareness and pressure: draws the attention of the government and the public to neglected issues.
• Training in leadership and citizenship: develops courage, organisation, unity and democratic values among the youth.
• Peaceful means: when demands are put through rallies, sit-ins, signature campaigns and dialogue, it strengthens democracy rather than weakening it.

3. Students' Protest as Harmful

• Loss of study time: prolonged strikes, chakkajam and college closures spoil the academic career of students themselves.
• Violence and destruction: burning of vehicles, vandalism of public property and clashes cause loss of life and national wealth.
• Political misuse: students are often used as tools by political parties and vested interest groups for their own ends.
• Disturbance of law and order: disrupts transport, business, hospitals and the normal life of common people.
• Loss of image and discipline: indiscipline, disrespect for teachers and authority, and a culture of "might is right" harm the students' own future.

4. Criteria for a Purposeful Protest

• Peaceful and non-violent in nature.
• Based on genuine, just and specific demands.
• Free from political exploitation and personal interest.
• Open to dialogue, negotiation and legal means.
• Time-bound, so that academic loss is minimised.

5. Conclusion

• Protest itself is neither wholly good nor wholly bad; its purpose and method decide its value.
• Students should protest, but peacefully, rationally and for just causes.
• The government and authorities should also listen to students' genuine demands in time so that protest does not become necessary.
• Balanced conclusion: "Protest for a cause is a right; protest without a cause is a ruin."

Report Writing — 15 Marks

Report on a Three-Day Science Exhibition Held in Our Campus

Reported by: [Your Name], BSc First Year Date: 15 Ashadh 2082 (30 June 2025) Venue: [Campus Name], Kathmandu

Introduction

A three-day science exhibition was held in our campus from 10 Ashadh to 12 Ashadh 2082 (28–30 June 2025). The programme was organised by the Science Society of the campus in collaboration with the Department of Science. The main objective of the exhibition was to encourage scientific curiosity among students, to display innovative models and experiments, and to create awareness about the practical use of science in daily life. Altogether 45 projects prepared by students of BSc First Year and Second Year were exhibited.

Programme Schedule and Inauguration

The exhibition was formally inaugurated on the first day by the Campus Chief, who cut the ribbon and lighted the traditional lamp. In his inaugural speech, he stressed that science is not merely a subject of books but a means of solving real problems of society. The Head of the Department explained the rules of the exhibition and thanked the participants. On the first day, the exhibition remained open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. for students and staff. On the second and third days, it was open to the public, including school students from nearby schools.

Projects Displayed

The projects were divided into four sections: physics, chemistry, biology and information technology. In physics, students displayed a working model of a solar water heater, a simple electric generator, and a hydraulic lift. In chemistry, projects on water purification, acid-base indicators made from local flowers, and biodegradable plastic attracted much attention. In biology, models of the human heart, the digestive system, and a demonstration of hydroponics were presented. In information technology, students showed simple computer programs, a website for the campus, and a small robot. Most of the models were prepared from locally available and low-cost materials.

Activities and Visitors

Besides the display, several activities were conducted during the three days. On the second day, a quiz competition on general science was held, and on the third day, two short talks were delivered by teachers on "Science in Everyday Life" and "Career Opportunities in Science". About 1,200 visitors, including students, teachers, parents, and local people, visited the exhibition. A panel of three judges evaluated the projects on the basis of originality, scientific understanding, presentation, and usefulness. The visitors praised the creativity and hard work of the students.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The exhibition concluded on 12 Ashadh with a closing ceremony. Prizes were distributed to the three best projects. The programme was successful in developing scientific temper, teamwork, and confidence among the students. However, some shortcomings were also noticed: the exhibition hall was small and crowded, and there was no separate section for junior school visitors. Therefore, it is recommended that the next exhibition be held in a larger hall, that more schools be invited formally, and that more time be given to students for preparation. Such exhibitions should be organised every year.

Five-Paragraph Essay — 15 Marks

Science and Society

Science and society have always moved together, each shaping the other. Science is the systematic study of nature through observation, experiment, and reasoning, while society is the organised life of human beings living together. In the modern world, science is no longer limited to laboratories; it has entered our homes, schools, hospitals, farms, and industries. It has changed the way we live, think, and communicate. At the same time, society gives science its direction, its resources, and its purpose. Therefore, the relationship between science and society is one of close and continuous interdependence.

Science has brought enormous benefits to society. Medical science has controlled deadly diseases, increased life expectancy, and made surgery and vaccination possible. Agricultural science has raised food production through improved seeds, fertilizers, and irrigation. Engineering and technology have given us electricity, transport, communication, and safe drinking water. Information technology has connected the whole world through the internet and mobile phones. In Nepal too, science has made life easier — from hydropower and telemedicine to online banking and weather forecasting. Without science, the comfort and progress of modern society would be impossible to imagine.

However, science is not an unmixed blessing. The same science that cures diseases has also produced destructive weapons. Industrial growth has polluted air, water, and soil, and climate change now threatens the whole planet. Machines have replaced workers and created unemployment. Misuse of the internet has spread rumours, cybercrime, and addiction among the young. Misuse of chemical fertilizers has degraded farmland. These problems show that science itself is neutral; it is the way society uses it that decides whether it becomes a boon or a curse. Hence, society must use science with wisdom and responsibility.

For this reason, society has an important role in guiding science. People must decide which research should be encouraged and which should be controlled. Laws must be made to stop the misuse of scientific knowledge. Education should develop scientific temper — the habit of questioning, testing, and reasoning — rather than blind belief. Scientists should work not only for profit but also for the welfare of humanity. Public awareness, ethical values, and government policy together can direct science towards peace, health, and sustainable development.

In conclusion, science and society are two sides of the same coin. Science provides the tools for progress, and society provides the values and direction for using those tools. A society without science remains backward, while science without social responsibility becomes dangerous. Therefore, the real challenge of our time is not to produce more science alone, but to build a wise society that uses science for the benefit of all. If science and society work hand in hand, the future of humanity will be bright, peaceful, and prosperous.

(a) Banning is not a solution to every social problem because prohibition does not remove the underlying desire or demand for the substance or behaviour; it merely drives it underground. People then break the law, a black market grows, and the State has to spend more on policing and punishment without actually curing the problem. The passage shows this with alcohol: bans have often failed, whereas education, persuasion and voluntary temperance movements have succeeded in changing habits.

(b) Latin countries handle alcohol by treating it as a normal part of daily life rather than as a forbidden or dangerous substance. Drinking is moderate, social and tied to meals and family occasions, so it is integrated into the culture instead of being hidden or sensationalised. Because it is not made into a taboo, it does not produce the binge-drinking culture found where alcohol is restricted or preached against.

(c) The writer opposes new laws because they increase the intrusive power of the State over ordinary people's lives without solving the real problem. He argues that instead of adding fresh restrictions, it would be better to repeal a few existing laws — particularly parts of the Human Rights Act that let troublemakers say "I know my rights" whenever they are corrected. In his view, the existing laws against drunkenness should simply be enforced, and the culture of drunkenness reduced through imaginative, non-legal means.

(d) The major argument of the passage is that drunkenness is better tackled by changing social attitudes and culture than by passing more laws. Prohibition and legal bans have generally failed, while voluntary temperance movements, community and church work, sporting activities and even temperance dances have successfully reduced public drunkenness. Therefore, the State should enforce the laws it already has against drunkenness and find imaginative ways to weaken the culture of drinking, rather than constantly expanding its own intrusive powers.

a) In what ways is the power given by science superior to the power arising from faith and prayer? Discuss by bringing references from "God in the godless universe" by Bertrand Russell.

In "God in the godless universe," Bertrand Russell argues that the power which science places in human hands is superior to the power sought through faith and prayer because it is real, verifiable, and effective, whereas the power claimed by religion is imaginary and has never produced any demonstrable result. He does not merely say that science is truer than religion; he says that science actually works, while faith and prayer do not.

First, the power of science is demonstrable and cumulative. Russell points out that when men pray for rain during a drought, the rain does not come because of the prayer; but when men build dams and irrigation canals on the basis of meteorological and engineering knowledge, water is actually brought to the fields. The power obtained through knowledge of natural laws can be tested, repeated, and improved, so that each generation stands on the discoveries of the last. Faith and prayer, by contrast, produce no such progress: the prayers of a modern believer are no more efficacious than those of an ancient Egyptian priest.

Second, the power of science is universally available and impersonal. Russell stresses that scientific knowledge belongs to no chosen people and favours no particular creed. A Hindu, a Christian, or an atheist can equally use the same medicine, the same electricity, and the same aeroplane. The power arising from faith, on the other hand, is claimed only by those who hold the correct belief, and it divides humanity into the faithful and the unbelievers. Thus science unites mankind in a common inheritance of power, while faith fragments it.

Third, the power of science is superior in its consequences for human welfare. Russell observes that the great improvements in human life — the conquest of plague, the lengthening of the life span, the abolition of slavery in practice through machinery — have come from knowledge, not from prayer. He is careful to admit that science can also be used for destruction, but he insists that this is a question of how men choose to use the power, not a defect in the power itself. Faith, by contrast, has often been used to justify cruelty and to prevent the relief of suffering, as when prayers were offered instead of medicine.

Finally, Russell argues that the power of science is superior because it is founded on evidence and admits its own ignorance. Science advances by doubt, experiment, and correction; it never claims final and infallible authority. Faith and prayer rest on unverifiable assertion and cannot be corrected, so they cannot grow. The humility of science is, in Russell's view, the very source of its strength.

In short, for Russell the power of science is superior to the power of faith and prayer because it is real, testable, progressive, universal, and beneficial, while the power claimed by faith and prayer is illusory. Science gives man mastery over nature; faith and prayer give him only the illusion of mastery.

b) Write a couple of paragraphs on benefits and safety risks of solar heat on the basis of your reading of H.A. Bethe's "The Cost of Solar Heat."

In "The Cost of Solar Heat," H.A. Bethe examines solar energy as a possible substitute for fossil fuels and concludes that its benefits are genuine but that its practical use is limited by cost and by certain safety considerations. The chief benefit of solar heat is that it is inexhaustible and clean. The sun delivers an enormous amount of energy to the earth every day, and this supply will not run out as coal, oil, and gas will. Unlike the burning of fossil fuels, the use of solar heat does not release carbon dioxide or sulphur into the atmosphere, so it does not contribute to air pollution or to the greenhouse effect. Bethe also notes that solar energy is widely distributed: it is available in every country, so that no nation need depend on imported fuel. In sunny regions, solar heat can be used directly for heating water and buildings, for drying crops, and for producing steam to generate electricity. In this way it can reduce the pressure on conventional fuels and help preserve them for uses for which they are indispensable.

However, Bethe is equally clear about the safety risks and practical difficulties of solar heat. The first problem is that sunlight is dilute: a very large collecting area is needed to obtain a useful amount of power, and this makes the cost of solar installations high. The second problem is intermittency: the sun does not shine at night and shines weakly on cloudy days, so solar plants must be backed up by storage or by conventional power stations. As for safety, Bethe points out that solar heat must be concentrated by mirrors or lenses to reach the high temperatures required for generating electricity, and such concentrated sunlight can cause severe burns to the eyes and skin, and can set fire to materials if the beam is misdirected. The heat-transfer fluids and the large quantities of hot water or steam involved in solar thermal plants also create the usual hazards of any thermal installation — burns, leaks, and the risk of explosion. In addition, the manufacture of large mirror arrays and storage systems requires considerable material and energy, and the disposal of worn-out equipment raises environmental questions. Bethe therefore concludes that solar heat is a valuable but not unlimited resource: it can make a useful contribution to the world's energy supply, but it cannot by itself replace fossil fuels or nuclear power, and its use must be carefully planned with attention both to economy and to safety.

(a) Punctuation and capitalisation

i. This is his most recent novel, isn't it?

ii. When we started eating, the dog came and sat beside us.

iii. I lived in Namche until January 1990.

iv. She wore a red, blue and white sari.

v. Because of his arrogance, friendship is impossible.

(b) Correct tense form

i. He gave me as much advice as I needed.

ii. His writings were much better than I had expected.

iii. He talks as if he were the boss of the company.

iv. Whenever I go there, I remember my deceased mother.

v. He can write only if he has a pen.

Man's treatment of man has not always been human. Throughout history, human beings have repeatedly shown cruelty, injustice, and indifference toward their own kind. Slavery, in which millions of people were bought and sold like goods, stands as one of the darkest examples of this inhumanity. Wars have been fought in which innocent civilians, including women and children, were killed without mercy. Even today, discrimination on the basis of caste, colour, religion, and gender continues to deny countless people their basic rights and dignity. The Holocaust, the partition of India, and the recent genocides in various parts of the world remind us how easily civilised societies can turn against their own members. Thus, although man claims to be the most advanced creature on earth, his record of treating fellow human beings with compassion and justice remains deeply flawed.

Topic chosen: (a) Use of Animals in Scientific Experimentation

Outline

I. Introduction / Definition

• Definition of animal experimentation (vivisection in the broad sense)
• Scale of the practice worldwide
• Thesis: the practice is scientifically valuable but morally costly, and must be regulated and progressively reduced

II. Background / Point of Origin of the Argument

• Origins in ancient Greek anatomy (Alcmaeon, Aristotle, Galen)
• Medieval and early modern physiology (Harvey, Descartes' mechanistic view)
• Nineteenth-century rise of experimental medicine (Bernard, Pasteur, Koch)
• Twentieth-century codification: Russell and Burch's Three Rs (1959)

III. Discussion / Argumentation — In Favour

• Medical breakthroughs: vaccines (rabies, polio, COVID-19), insulin, antibiotics, chemotherapy
• Safety and toxicity testing before human trials
• Genetic similarity of mammals to humans; controlled variables impossible in human subjects
• No complete alternative yet for whole-organism, multi-system effects

IV. Discussion / Argumentation — Against and the Middle Path

• Ethical objection: sentient beings suffer; Singer's equal-consideration argument
• Scientific limitation: species differences reduce predictive validity (thalidomide, Vioxx)
• Alternatives: cell cultures, organ-on-chip, computer modelling, human tissue banks
• Regulation: IACUC-type ethics committees, the Three Rs, transparent reporting

V. Conclusion

• Neither total abolition nor unlimited licence is defensible
• Ethical obligation: reduce numbers, refine methods, replace where possible
• Balanced verdict: conditional justification under strict welfare standards

Essay

The use of animals in scientific experimentation refers to the practice of employing live non-human animals — chiefly mice, rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs, cats and non-human primates — in research, teaching, and testing, in order to understand biological processes, develop treatments, or assess the safety of substances. It is a practice of enormous scale: estimates suggest that tens of millions of vertebrates are used in laboratories worldwide every year, with rodents accounting for the overwhelming majority. The debate surrounding it is not merely technical but moral, because it pits the relief of human and animal suffering against the suffering inflicted on the animals themselves. This essay argues that animal experimentation has been historically indispensable and remains partly necessary, but that it is justified only under strict ethical regulation and only where genuine efforts are made to reduce, refine, and replace it.

The roots of the practice reach back to classical antiquity. Greek physicians such as Alcmaeon and later Galen dissected and experimented on animals to map anatomy and physiology, and Galen's animal-derived conclusions dominated medicine for over a thousand years. In the seventeenth century, William Harvey used animal experiments to demonstrate the circulation of the blood, while René Descartes' view of animals as mere machines provided philosophical comfort to experimenters. The practice expanded dramatically in the nineteenth century, when Claude Bernard, Louis Pasteur, and Robert Koch established experimental medicine as a discipline, using animals to uncover the mechanisms of disease and to produce the first vaccines. Public unease grew alongside the science, leading Britain to pass the Cruelty to Animals Act in 1876. The modern framework was shaped in 1959 by W. M. S. Russell and R. L. Burch, whose principle of the "Three Rs" — Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement — remains the guiding ethical standard today. Thus the argument has moved from unrestricted use, through early legal restraint, to a demand for justification and minimisation.

The strongest case for the practice is its record of achievement. Animal research was central to the development of vaccines against rabies, polio, and diphtheria; to the discovery and purification of insulin, which turned diabetes from a fatal disease into a manageable one; to antibiotics, anaesthesia, and organ transplantation; and, more recently, to mRNA vaccine technology. Because mammals share a large proportion of their genes and physiology with humans, a living animal can reveal the effects of a drug or a pathogen on an entire, interacting system — something no isolated cell can do. Moreover, before any new medicine is given to a human volunteer, regulators require evidence of safety, and animal toxicity testing has historically supplied much of that evidence. Finally, in animal studies researchers can control diet, genetics, and environment in ways that are ethically impossible with human subjects, allowing causal claims to be tested cleanly. For these reasons, many scientists and medical bodies maintain that a complete and immediate ban would slow the development of treatments and endanger patients.

Against these benefits stands a serious ethical objection. Animals used in laboratories are sentient: they feel pain, fear, and distress. To inflict such experiences on beings that cannot consent, for the benefit of others, is precisely the kind of treatment that most moral systems forbid among humans. Peter Singer's argument for equal consideration of interests holds that the capacity to suffer, not the capacity to reason, is what grounds moral standing; on this view, the species boundary is as arbitrary as a race or sex boundary. There is also a scientific objection: because species differ, results often fail to translate. Thalidomide passed animal tests yet caused severe birth defects in humans; several drugs that appeared safe in animals were later withdrawn after harming patients. These failures show that animal models are not infallible predictors. The reasonable response is not abolition but disciplined reduction: cell and tissue cultures, organ-on-chip devices, computer and AI-based modelling, and human tissue banks can replace many routine tests, while the Three Rs can shrink and soften the remainder. Regulation through ethics committees, mandatory harm–benefit review, and public reporting is what converts a morally troubling practice into a defensible one.

In conclusion, the use of animals in scientific experimentation cannot be judged in black and white. It has saved millions of lives and remains, for the present, without a complete substitute for certain whole-organism questions. Yet the suffering it causes is real and morally weighty, and the fact that alternatives are steadily improving shifts the burden of proof onto the experimenter. The defensible position is therefore conditional: animal research may continue only where it is scientifically necessary, ethically reviewed, humanely conducted, and accompanied by a serious commitment to replace, reduce, and refine. Progress in science and progress in ethics must advance together, so that the debt owed to laboratory animals is repaid by making their use rarer, gentler, and finally unnecessary.