William Gilbert and Magnetism

A
The 16th and 17th centuries saw two great pioneers of modern science: Galileo and Gilbert. The impact of
their findings is eminent. Gilbert was the first modern scientist, also the accredited father of the science of
electricity and magnetism, an Englishman of learning and a physician at the court of Elizabeth. Prior to him,
all that was known of electricity and magnetism was what the ancients knew, nothing more than that the
lodestone possessed magnetic properties and that amber and jet, when rubbed, would attract bits of paper or
other substances of small specific gravity. However, he is less well known than he deserves.
B
Gilbert’s birth pre-dated Galileo. Born in an eminent local family in Colchester County in the UK, on May 24,
1544, he went to grammar school, and then studied medicine at St John’s College, Cambridge, graduating in
1573. Later he travelled in the continent and eventually settled down in London.
C
He was a very successful and eminent doctor. All this culminated in his election to the president of the Royal
Science Society. He was also appointed personal physician to the Queen (Elizabeth I), and later knighted by
the Queen. He faithfully served her until her death. However, he didn’t outlive the Queen for long and died on
November 30, 1603, only a few months after his appointment as personal physician to King James.
D
Gilbert was first interested in chemistry but later changed his focus due to the large portion of mysticism of
alchemy involved (such as the transmutation of metal). He gradually developed his interest in physics after
the great minds of the ancient, particularly about the knowledge the ancient Greeks had about lodestones,
strange minerals with the power to attract iron. In the meantime, Britain became a major seafaring nation in
1588 when the Spanish Armada was defeated, opening the way to British settlement of America. British ships
depended on the magnetic compass, yet no one understood why it worked. Did the Pole Star attract it, as
Columbus once speculated; or was there a magnetic mountain at the pole, as described in Odyssey, which
ships would never approach, because the sailors thought its pull would yank out all their iron nails and
fittings? For nearly 20 years, William Gilbert conducted ingenious experiments to understand magnetism. His
works include On the Magnet, Magnetic Bodies, and the Great Magnet of the Earth.
E
Gilbert’s discovery was so important to modern physics. He investigated the nature of magnetism and
electricity. He even coined the word “electric”. Though the early beliefs of magnetism were also largely
entangled with superstitions such as that rubbing garlic on lodestone can neutralise its magnetism, one
example being that sailors even believed the smell of garlic would even interfere with the action of compass,
which is why helmsmen were forbidden to eat it near a ship’s compass. Gilbert also found that metals can be
magnetised by rubbing materials such as fur, plastic or the like on them. He named the ends of a magnet
“north pole” and “south pole”. The magnetic poles can attract or repel, depending on polarity. In addition,
however, ordinary iron is always attracted to a magnet. Though he started to study the relationship between
magnetism and electricity, sadly he didn’t complete it. His research of static electricity using amber and jet
only demonstrated that objects with electrical charges can work like magnets attracting small pieces of paper
and stuff. It is a French guy named du Fay that discovered that there are actually two electrical charges,
positive and negative.
F
He also questioned the traditional astronomical beliefs. Though a Copernican, he didn’t express in his
quintessential beliefs whether the earth is at the centre of the universe or in orbit around the sun. However, he
believed that stars are not equidistant from the earth but have their own earth-like planets orbiting around
them. The earth itself is like a giant magnet, which is also why compasses always point north. They spin on an
axis that is aligned with the earth’s polarity. He even likened the polarity of the magnet to the polarity of the
earth and built an entire magnetic philosophy on this analogy. In his explanation, magnetism is the soul of the
earth. Thus a perfectly spherical lodestone, when aligned with the earth’s poles, would wobble all by itself in
24 hours. Further, he also believed that the sun and other stars wobble just like the earth does around a crystal
core, and speculated that the moon might also be a magnet caused to orbit by its magnetic attraction to the
earth. This was perhaps the first proposal that a force might cause a heavenly orbit.

G
His research method was revolutionary in that he used experiments rather than pure logic and reasoning like
the ancient Greek philosophers did. It was a new attitude towards the scientific investigation. Until then,
scientific experiments were not in fashion. It was because of this scientific attitude, together with his contri -
bution to our knowledge of magnetism, that a unit of magneto motive force, also known as magnetic
potential, was named Gilbert in his honour. His approach of careful observation and experimentation rather
than the authoritative opinion or deductive philosophy of others had laid the very foundation for modern
science.
Questions 1-7 Reading Passage 244 has seven paragraphs A-G. Choose the correct heading for each
paragraph from the list of headings below. Write the correct number i-x in boxes 1-7 on your answer sheet.
List of headings

i Early years of Gilbert

ii What was new about his scientific research method
iii The development of chemistry
iv Questioning traditional astronomy
v Pioneers of the early science
vi Professional and social recognition
vii Becoming the president of the Royal Science Society
viii The great works of Gilbert
ix His discovery about magnetism
x His change of focus
1. Paragraph A
2. Paragraph B
3. Paragraph C
4. Paragraph D
5. Paragraph E
6. Paragraph F
7. Paragraph G
Questions 8-10 Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 1?
In boxes 8-10 on your answer sheet, write
TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

8. He is less famous than he should be.

9. He was famous as a doctor before he was employed by the Queen.
10. He lost faith in the medical theories of his time.

1. v 8. TRUE

2. i 9. TRUE

3. vi 10. NOT GIVEN

4. x 11. C, D, E

5. ix 12. C, D, E

6. iv 13. C, D, E

7. ii
 What is a dinosaur?
A. Although the name dinosaur is derived from the Greek for "terrible lizard", dinosaurs were not, in fact,
lizards at all. Like lizards, dinosaurs are included in the class Reptilia, or reptiles, one of the five main classes
of Vertebrata, animals with backbones. However, at the next level of classification, within reptiles, significant
differences in the skeletal anatomy of lizards and dinosaurs have led scientists to place these groups of
animals into two different superorders: Lepidosauria, or lepidosaurs, and Archosauria, or archosaurs.
B. Classified as lepidosaurs are lizards and snakes and their prehistoric ancestors. Included among the
archosaurs, or "ruling reptiles", are prehistoric and modern crocodiles, and the now extinct thecodonts,
pterosaurs and dinosaurs. Palaeontologists believe that both dinosaurs and crocodiles evolved, in the later
years of the Triassic Period (c. 248-208 million years ago), from creatures called pseudosuchian thecodonts.
Lizards, snakes and different types of thecodont are believed to have evolved earlier in the Triassic Period
from reptiles known as eosuchians.
C. The most important skeletal differences between dinosaurs and other archosaurs are in the bones of the
skull, pelvis and limbs. Dinosaur skulls are found in a great range of shapes and sizes, reflecting the different
eating habits and lifestyles of a large and varied group of animals that dominated life on Earth for an
extraordinary 165 million years. However, unlike the skulls of any other known animals, the skulls of
dinosaurs had two long bones known as vomers. These bones extended on either side of the head, from the
front of the snout to the level of the holes on the skull known as the antorbital fenestra, situated in front of the
dinosaur's orbits or eye sockets.

D. All dinosaurs, whether large or small, quadrupedal or bidepal, fleet-footed or slow-moving, shared a
common body plan. Identification of this plan makes it possible to differentiate dinosaurs from any other
types of animal, even other archosaurs. Most significantly, in dinosaurs, the pelvis and femur had evolved so
that the hind limbs were held vertically beneath the body, rather than sprawling out to the sides like the limbs
of a lizard. The femur of a dinosaur had a sharply in-turned neck and a ball-shaped head, which slotted into a
fully open acetabulum or hip socket. A supra-acetabular crest helped prevent dislocation of the femur. The
position of the knee joint, aligned below the acetabulum, made it possible for the whole hind limb to swing
backwards and forwards. This unique combination of features gave dinosaurs what is known as a "fully
improved gait". Evolution of this highly efficient method of walking also developed in mammals, but among
reptiles, it occurred only in dinosaurs.

E. For the purpose of further classification, dinosaurs are divided into two orders: Saurischia, or saurischian
dinosaurs, and Ornithischia, or ornithischian dinosaurs. This division is made on the basis of their pelvic
anatomy. All dinosaurs had a pelvic girdle with each side comprised of three bones: the pubis, ilium and
ischium. However, the orientation of these bones follows one of two patterns. In saurischian dinosaurs, also
known as lizard-hipped dinosaurs, the pubis points forwards, as is usual in most types of reptile. By contrast,
in ornithischian, or bird-hipped dinosaurs, the pubis points backwards towards the rear of the animal, which is
also true of birds.

F. Of the two orders of dinosaurs, the Saurischia was the larger and the first to evolve. It is divided into two
suborders: Therapoda, or therapods, and Sauropodomorpha, or sauropodomorphs. The therapods, or "beast
feet", were bipedal, predatory carnivores. They ranged in size from the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex, 12m long,
5.6m tall and weighing an estimated 6.4 tonnes, to the smallest known dinosaur, Compsognathus, a mere
1.4m long and estimated 3kg in weight when fully grown. The sauropodomorphs, or "lizard feet forms",
included both bipedal and quadrupedal dinosaurs. Some sauropodomorphs were carnivorous or omnivorous
but later species were typically herbivorous. They included some of the largest and best-known of all
dinosaurs, such as Diplodocus, a huge quadruped with an elephant-like body, a long, thin tail and neck that
gave it a total length of 27m, and a tiny head.
G. Ornithischian dinosaurs were bipedal or quadrupedal herbivores. They are now usually divided into three
suborders: Ornithipoda, Thyreophora and Marginocephalia. The ornithopods, or "bird feet", both large and
small, could walk or run on their long hind legs, balancing their body by holding their tails stiffly off the
ground behind them. An example is Iguanodon, up to 9m long, 5m tall and weighing 4.5 tonnes. The
thyreophorans, or "shield bearers", also known as armoured dinosaurs, were quadrupeds with rows of
protective bony spikes, studs, or plates along their backs and tails. They included Stegosaurus, 9m long and
weighing 2 tonnes.

H. The marginocephalians, or "margined heads", were bipedal or quadrupedal ornithschians with a deep bony
frill or narrow shelf at the back of the skull. An example is Triceratops, a rhinoceros-like dinosaur, 9m long,
weighing 5.4 tonnes and bearing a prominent neck frill and three large horns.

Questions 27-33 Reading Passage 260 has 8 paragraphs (A-H). Write the appropriate numbers (i-xiii) in
Boxes 27-33 on your answer sheet.

27. Paragraph A
28. Paragraph B
29. Paragraph C
30. Paragraph D
31. Paragraph E
32. Paragraph F
33. Paragraph G
Example: Paragraph H Answer: x
List of headings
i. 165 million years
ii. The body plan of archosaurs
iii. Dinosaurs - terrible lizards
iv. Classification according to pelvic anatomy
v. The suborders of Saurischia
vi. Lizards and dinosaurs - two distinct superorders
vii. Unique body plan helps identify dinosaurs from other animals
viii. Herbivore dinosaurs
ix. Lepidosaurs
x. Frills and shelves
xi. The origins of dinosaurs and lizards
xii. Bird-hipped dinosaurs
xiii. Skull bones distinguish dinosaurs from other archosaurs
Questions 34-36 Complete the sentences below. Use NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the
passage for each blank space.

34. Lizards and dinosaurs are classified into two different superorders because of the difference in
their ......................
35. In the Triassic Period, ...................... evolved into thecodonts, for example, lizards and snakes.
36. Dinosaur skulls differed from those of any other known animals because of the presence of
vomers: ...................…

1. vi 8. skeletal anatomy

2. xi 9. eosuchians

3. xiii 10. two long bones

4. vii

5. iv

6. v
 Music: Language We All Speak
A. Music is one of the human species’s relatively few universal abilities. Without formal training, any
individual, from Stone Age tribesman to suburban teenager has the ability to recognize music and, in
some fashion, to make it. Why this should be so is a mystery. After all, music isn’t necessary for getting
through the day, and if it aids in reproduction, it does so only in highly indirect ways. Language, by
contrast, is also everywhere-but for reasons that are more obvious. With language, you and the
members of your tribe can organize a migration across Africa, build reed boats and cross the seas, and
communicate at night even when you can’t see each other. Modern culture, in all its technological
extravagance, springs directly from the human talent for manipulating symbols and syntax. Scientists
have always been intrigued by the connection between music and language. Yet over the years, words
and melody have acquired a vastly different status in the lab and the seminar room. While language has
long been considered essential to unlocking the mechanisms of human intelligence, music is generally
treated as an evolutionary frippery – mere “auditory cheesecake,” as the Harvard cognitive scientist
Steven Pinker puts it.

B. But thanks to a decade-long ware of neuroscience research, that tune is changing. A flurry of recent
publications suggests that language and music may equally be able to tell us who we are and where
we’re from – not just emotionally, but biologically. In July, the journal Nature Neuroscience devoted a
special issue to the topic. And in an article in the August 6 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience, David
Schwartz, Catherine Howe, and Dale Purves of Duke University argued that the sounds of music and the
sounds of language are intricately connected.
To grasp the originality of this idea, it’s necessary to realize two things about how music has
traditionally been understood. First, musicologists have long emphasized that while each culture
stamps a special identity onto its music; the music itself has some universal qualities. For example, in
virtually all cultures sound is divided into some or all of the 12 intervals that make up the chromatic
scale – that is, the scale represented by the keys on a piano. For centuries, observers have attributed
this preference for certain combinations of tones to the mathematical properties of sound itself. Some
2,500 years ago, Pythagoras was the first to note a direct relationship between the harmoniousness of a
tone combination and the physical dimensions of the object that produced it. For example, a plucked
string will always play an octave lower than a similar string half its size, and a fifth lower than a similar
string two-thirds it’s length. This link between simple ratios and harmony has influenced music theory
ever since.

C. This music-is-moth idea is often accompanied by the notion that music formally speaking at least
exists apart from the world in which it was created. Writing recently in The New York Review of Books,
pianist and critic Charles Rosen discussed the long-standing notion that while painting and sculpture
reproduce at least some aspects of the natural world, and writing describes thoughts and feelings we
are all familiar with, music is entirely abstracted from the world in which we live. Neither idea is right,
according to David Schwartz and his colleagues. Human musical preferences are fundamentally shaped
not by elegant algorithms or ration but by the messy sounds of real life, and of speech in particular –
which in turn is shaped by our evolutionary heritage. “The explanation of music, like the explanation of
any product of the mind, must be rooted in biology, not in numbers per se,” says Schwartz.

Schwartz, Howe, and Purves analyzed a vast selection of speech sounds from a variety of languages to
reveal the underlying patterns common to all utterances. In order to focus only on the raw sound, they
discarded all theories about speech and meaning and sliced sentences into random bites. Using a
database of over 100,000 brief segments of speech, they noted which frequency had the greatest
emphasis in each sound. The resulting set of frequencies, they discovered, corresponded closely to the
chromatic scale. In short, the building blocks of music are to be found in speech.

Far from being abstract, music presents a strange analogue to the patterns created by the sounds of
speech. “Music, like the visual arts, is rooted in our experience of the natural world,” says Schwartz. “It
emulates our sound environment in the way that visual arts emulate the visual environment.” In music,
we hear the echo of our basic sound-making instrument – the vocal tract. The explanation for human
music is simple; still than Pythagoras’s mathematical equations. We like the sounds that are familiar to
us-specifically, we like sounds that remind us of us.

This brings up some chicken-or-egg evolutionary questions. It may be that music imitates speech
directly, the researchers say, in which case it would seem that language evolved first. It’s also
conceivable that music came first and language is in effect an Imitation of the song – that in everyday
speech we hit the musical notes we especially like. Alternatively, it may be that music imitates the
general products of the human sound-making system, which just happens to be mostly speech. “We
can’t know this,” says Schwartz. “What we do know is that they both come from the same system, and it
is this that shapes our preferences.”

D. Schwartz’s study also casts light on the long-running question of whether animals understand or
appreciate music. Despite the apparent abundance of “music” in the natural world- birdsong,
whalesong, wolf howls, synchronized chimpanzee hooting previous studies have found that many
laboratory animals don’t show a great affinity for the human variety of music-making. Marc Hauser and
Josh McDermott of Harvard argued in the July issue of Nature Neuroscience that animals don’t create or
perceive music the way we do. The fact that laboratory monkeys can show recognition of human tunes
is evidence, they say, of shared general features of the auditory system, not any specific chimpanzee
musical ability. As for birds, those most musical beasts, they generally recognize their own tunes – a
narrow repertoire – but don’t generate novel melodies as we do. There are no avian Mozarts.

But what’s been played to the animals, Schwartz notes, is human music. If animals evolve preferences
for sound as we do – based upon the soundscape in which they live – then their “music” would be
fundamentally different from ours. In the same way, our scales derive from human utterances, a cat’s
idea of a good tune would derive from yowls and meows. To demonstrate that animals don’t appreciate
sounds the way we do, we’d need evidence that they don’t respond to “music” constructed from their
own sound environment.

E. No matter how the connection between language and music is parsed, what is apparent is that our
sense of music, even our love for it, is as deeply rooted in our biology and in our brains as language is.
This is most obvious with babies, says Sandra Trehub at the University of Toronto, who also published a
paper in the Nature Neuroscience special issue.

For babies, music and speech are on a continuum. Mothers use musical speech to “regulate infants’
emotional states.” Trehub says. Regardless of what language they speak, the voice all mothers use with
babies is the same: “something between speech and song.” This kind of communication “puts the baby
in a trance-like state, which may proceed to sleep or extended periods of rapture.” So if the babies of the
world could understand the latest research on language and music, they probably wouldn’t be very
surprised. The upshot, says Trehub, is that music may be even more of a necessity than we realize.

Questions 27-31 Reading Passage 3 has five paragraphs A-E. Choose the correct heading for
each section from the list of headings below.
List of Headings
i Animal sometimes make music.
ii Recent research on music
iii Culture embedded in music 1. iii

iv Historical theories review 2. vii

v Communication in music with animals 3. iv

vi Contrast between music and language 4. i

vii Questions on a biological link with human and music 5. viii

viii Music is good for babies.

6. F

27 Paragraph A
28 Paragraph B
29 Paragraph C
30 Paragraph D
31 Paragraph E
 Communicating Styles and Conflict

A. As far back as Hippocrates’ time (460-370B.C.), people have tried to understand other people by
characterizing them according to personality type or temperament. Hippocrates believed there were four
different body fluids that influenced four basic types of temperament. His work was further developed 500 years
later by Galen. These days there are any number of self-assessment tools that relate to the basic descriptions
developed by Galen, although we no longer believe the source to be the types of body fluid that dominate our
systems.

B. The values in self-assessments that help determine personality style. Learning styles, communication styles,
conflict-handling styles, or other aspects of individuals is that they help depersonalize conflict in interpersonal
relationships. The depersonalization occurs when you realize that others aren’t trying to be difficult, but they
need different or more information than you do. They’re not intending to be rude: they are so focused on the task
they forget about greeting people. They would like to work faster but not at the risk of damaging the
relationships needed to get the job done. They understand there is a job to do. But it can only be done right with
the appropriate information, which takes time to collect. When used appropriately, understanding
communication styles can help resolve conflict on teams. Very rarely are conflicts true personality issues.
Usually, they are issues of style, information needs, or focus.

C. Hippocrates and later Galen determined there were four basic temperaments: sanguine, phlegmatic,
melancholic and choleric. These descriptions were developed centuries ago and are still somewhat apt, although
you could update the wording. In today’s world, they translate into the four fairly common communication styles
described below:

D. The sanguine person would be the expressive or spirited style of communication. These people speak in
pictures. They invest a lot of emotion and energy in their communication and often speak quickly. Putting their
whole body into it. They are easily sidetracked onto a story that may or may not illustrate the point they are
trying to make. Because of their enthusiasm, they are great team motivators. They are concerned about people
and relationships. Their high levels of energy can come on strong at times and their focus is usually on the bigger
picture, which means they sometimes miss the details or the proper order of things. These people find conflict or
differences of opinion invigorating and love to engage in a spirited discussion. They love change and are
constantly looking for new and exciting adventures.

E. Tile phlegmatic person – cool and persevering – translates into the technical or systematic communication
style. This style of communication is focused on facts and technical details. Phlegmatic people have an orderly
methodical way of approaching tasks, and their focus is very much on the task, not on the people, emotions, or
concerns that the task may evoke. The focus is also more on the details necessary to accomplish a task.
Sometimes the details overwhelm the big picture and focus needs to be brought back to the context of the task.
People with this style think the facts should speak for themselves, and they are not as comfortable with conflict.
They need time to adapt to change and need to understand both the logic of it and the steps involved.

F. A tile melancholic person who is soft-hearted and oriented toward doing things for others translates into the
considerate or sympathetic communication style. A person with this communication style is focused on people
and relationships. They are good listeners and do things for other people-sometimes to the detriment of getting
things done for themselves. They want to solicit everyone’s opinion and make sure everyone is comfortable with
whatever is required to get the job done. At times this focus on others can distract from the task at hand. Because
they are so concerned with the needs of others and smoothing over issues, they do not like conflict. They believe
that change threatens the status quo and tends to make people feel uneasy, so people with this communication
style, like phlegmatic people, need time to consider the changes in order to adapt to them.

G. The choleric temperament translates into the bold or direct style of communication. People with this style are
brief in their communication – the fewer words the better. They are big picture thinkers and love to be involved
in many things at once. They are focused on tasks and outcomes and often forget that the people involved in
carrying out the tasks have needs. They don’t do detailed work easily and as a result, can often underestimate
how much time it takes to achieve the task. Because they are so direct, they often seem forceful and can be very
intimidating to others. They usually would welcome someone challenging them. But most other styles are afraid
to do so. They also thrive on change, the more the better.

H. A well-functioning team should have all of these communication styles for true effectiveness. All teams need to
focus on the task, and they need to take care of relationships in order to achieve those tasks. They need the big
picture perspective or the context of their work, and they need the details to be identified and taken care of for
success. We all have aspects of each style within us. Some of us can easily move from one style to another and
adapt our style to the needs of the situation at hand-whether the focus is on tasks or relationships. For others, a
dominant style is very evident, and it is more challenging to see the situation from the perspective of another
style. The work environment can influence communication styles either by the type of work that is required or
by the predominance of one style reflected in that environment. Some people use one style at work and another
at home.

The good news about communication styles is that we have the ability to develop flexibility in our styles. The
greater the flexibility we have, the more skilled we usually are at handling possible and actual conflicts. Usually,
it has to be relevant to us to do so, either because we think it is important or because there are incentives in our
environment to encourage it. The key is that we have to want to become flexible with our communication style.
As Henry Ford said, “Whether you think you can or you can’t, you’re right!”

Questions 27-34. Choose the correct heading for each section from the list of headings below.

List of Headings
i Summarizing personality types
ii Combined styles for workplace
iii Physical explanation
iv A lively person who encourages
v Demanding and unsympathetic personality
vi Lazy and careless personality
vii The benefits of understanding communication styles
viii Cautious and caring
ix Factual and analytical personality
x Self-assessment determines one’s temperament

27. Section A
28. Section B
29. Section C
30. Section D
31. Section E
32. Section F
33. Section G
34. Section H

Questions 35-39 Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 251?
TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

35. It is believed that sanguine people dislike variety.

36. Melancholic and phlegmatic people have similar characteristics.
37. Managers often select their best employees according to personality types.
38. It is possible to change one’s personality type.
39. Workplace environments can affect which communication style is most effective.

1. iii 8. ii
2. vii 9. FALSE
3. i 10. TRUE
4. iv 11. NOT GIVEN
5. ix 12. TRUE
6. viii 13. TRUE
7. v