Ending Time:______ Reading Speed:_____

No. of words: 470 Starting Time:________

Ending Time: Reading Speed:

1) What is the Main Point/Central Idea of the passage?

--- --- 2) Write the summary of the passage?

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Vocabulary:

Passage 23 DAY 23

It is not that Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution are unknown in Alexandria, Egypt. But even among those who profess to know something about the subject, the common understanding is that Darwin said man came from monkeys.

Darwin, of course, did not say man came from monkeys. He said the two shares a common ancestor. But to discuss Darwin anywhere is not just to explore the origin of man. It is inevitable to engage in a debate between religion and science. That is why, 150 years after Darwin published “On the origin of species,” the British Council, the cultural arm of the British government, decided to hold an international conference on Darwin in this conservative, Sunni Muslim nation. It was a first.

“A lot of people say his theories are wrong, or go against religion,” said Martin Davidson, chief executive of the British Council. “His ideas provoke, but if we are going to understand each other, we have to discuss things that divide us.”

Darwin may be misunderstood here, but in many ways that is but one symptom of a more fundamental problem with education in Egypt and around the region. In a culture that prizes and nurtures conformity, challenging conventions and beliefs is anathema, said writers, political scientists, social workers, students and educators inside and outside the conference. Education here is based on rote memorisation with virtually no emphasis on creative thinking. Few schools here even teach the theory of evolution.

For example, once considered the intellectual capital of the Arab world, Egypt was recently ranked 124th of 133 countries in the quality of its primary education by the World Economic Forum, based in Switzerland. Other global assessments have provided equally dismal results.

Indeed, many people, including some of the 150 scientists and scholars in attendance at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina this month, were somewhat surprised that the government even agreed to allow the conference. It was unlike the leadership here to permit public discussion of ideas that challenge religious thinking and the national curriculum, or promote critical thinking they said.

The British Council framed the conference to seek middle ground, more than to promote confrontation. While challenging a religious society to think seriously about evolution, it emphasised the possibility of reconciling a belief in divine creation with Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection. That was a position that many students here said they were comfortable with.

“Darwin’s theory of species says nothing about the appearance of life - or about the origins of the universe,” read panel number 7, in an evolution of man exhibition put on display during the conference. “It is perfectly plausible to uphold a scientific account of how natural laws allowed the universe and life to develop and to believe that a deity created those laws. “Judging from public comments made during the gathering, the effort to reconcile faith and science left avowed atheists in the audience frustrated and did little to convince the religious fundamentalists.

No. of words: 494 Starting Time:__ Ending Time: Reading Speed:

1) What is the Main Point/Central Idea of the passage?

--- 2) Write the summary of the passage?

---

--- Vocabulary:

Passage 24 DAY 24

India nurtured various cultures in ancient times. Along with literature, fine art, music, dance and drama, architecture too, in all its grandeur, rose to great heights. It is not easy to explain Indian architecture; it is entirely different from that of Europe.

Indian civilization begins with the Indus civilization that dates back about 4000 years. The famous cities of Harappa and Mohenjadaro are now in Pakistan, while the ruins of Lothal are in India. Aryans from the west settled in India and developed “Vedic” literature as part of the Brahman religion. These became the Holy Books of the religion, which later came to be known as Hinduism. During the 5th-6th centuries BC, Gautama Siddharta became Buddha and started Buddhism and Vardhamana became Mahavira and started Jainism. Buddhism had the support of the royal class and was adopted by the masses. As Buddhism spread across the country, so did its monasteries and temples. As Hinduism re-established itself strongly, the Buddhist presence disappeared from India in the 13th century. Cave temples typically represent the architecture of Ancient Times. Naturally there must have been castles, palaces and houses during that time, but none of those remain, because buildings constructed of wood, rotted or burned easily. Temples were built of bricks, but when Buddhism died out, these were destroyed or pulled down due to a lack of protectors. However, cave temples and monasteries still exist today because they were carved out of rock - a much stronger material. There are around 1,200 such cave temples and monasteries left and 75 per cent of them belong to Buddhism.

As they were not satisfied with cave temples, entire sculpted rock temples were built during the Middle Ages. A few still exist unto the present day. In contrast to the rock temples that imitated wooden temples of ancient times, the stone temples, built by laying cut stones one on top of another, came to be the model of sculpted stone construction. But since these developed together, there is no line dividing the ages in terms of centuries. Construction of stone temples commenced in the 5th century, during the Gupta dynasty, but was standardized only during the 8th century. Many stone temples were built between the 7th and 9th centuries, but the temples carved out of rocks were constructed up till the 12th century. Hence according to the history of architecture, the transition from ancient times to the Middle Ages took many centuries. Buddhism took the lead in construction during ancient times and in contrast, Hinduism took the lead during the Middle Ages followed by Jainism. The method of stone construction improved by leaps and bounds in north and south India. The style caught on and very soon the whole of India was filled with stone structures.

The Chandella dynasty in the north and the Chola dynasty in the south showed remarkable developments in architecture, by building magnificent temples, using stone. Islam entered India during the 11th century and established power in Delhi during the 13th century. Till the 16th century, the Turkish and Afghan dynasties continued to rule Delhi during a period referred to as the “Delhi Sultanate”. Western styles of architecture, including techniques like domes were brought to India during this age and had a strong influence on building styles. This period called the Middle Ages, and the advent of the Mughals who conquered most of India, signalled the beginning of the Modern Age.

Mughal rule spread into more than half the sub-continent and the splendid Mughal style, which is a mix of the Indo-Islamic construction style, also blossomed. At that time, the Vijayanagara kingdom, which is predominantly Hindu, flourished in south India. At the same time, the Nayaks who were also Hindus ruled over some areas in the south. Both these dynasties appreciated technical developments with the main themes being large-scale construction, complex expressions and elaborate decorations. This phase is called the Modern Age. Emperor Akbar’s Hindu-Islamic fusion in north India and the lavish Dravidian style of construction in the south are remarkable styles of this age. Modern Age Indian architecture also includes the British era in India, until its Independence in 1947. British rule coincided with the decline of the Mughal era and the revival of Hinduism. The construction during this time was an adaptation of the Indian style in the colonial style brought from Europe. The direct impact of British architecture was seen from the second half of the 19th century, when research on Indian architectural history advanced and the Mughal style influenced colonial constructions. It is referred to as the Indo-Saracenic style. As we plunge into the age of Modernism (post- Indian Independence), we have to say that architectural styles differed largely until then. A major influence on Indian architecture, post-Independence, was that of French architect, Le Corbusier, who designed Chandigarh and various buildings in Ahmedabad. Indian architects, educated in Europe and America also made a mark, but trying to transplant the architecture of Europe and America that was very different in history and style had its own problems. It is only right to call modern architecture “Cosmopolitan architecture”.

The 600-odd buildings in the book are grouped together according to their similarities. To enable the traveller to decide which place to visit, the buildings are given a star rating, from 0 to 3. The rating is based on the fascinating quality of the building. If a building has archaeological importance, but is in ruins, then it is given a low rating. Ratings are also given from 1 to 3, with regards to the region, the importance or number of buildings, natural scenery, etc. This is done as a subjective measure to help the traveller use this as a yardstick while planning his journey.

No. of words: 950 Starting Time:__ Ending Time: Reading Speed:

1) What is the Main Point/Central Idea of the passage?

--- --- 2) Write the summary of the passage?

--- --- --- --- --- Vocabulary:

Passage 25 DAY 25

Riots in the British capital have hit inner-city Tottenham, suburban Ealing, gritty Hackney, chic Notting Hill. Windows have been smashed, video cameras stolen and cars set ablaze. Young men in hooded sweatshirts congregated on street corners and charged the police. “Copycat” riots have followed across the country, from Bristol to Nottingham. And nobody really knows why.

Scan the comment pages of the British press, and you will find a wide range of explanations. Read the center-right Daily Telegraph, and you will learn that the riots were caused by a weak and cowardly police force, absent fathers, welfare dependency, multiculturalism and the tolerance of gangs in schools. Read the center-left Guardian and you will be informed that police brutality, social exclusion, cuts in welfare spending and the widening gap between rich and poor are to blame. Some are convinced that high levels of immigration are at fault. Others believe the problem lies in British intolerance of immigrants and minorities.

There is a reason for the discrepancy: The rioters themselves do not wave signs. They do not chant. They weren’t protesting any particular government policy, as were student demonstrators in London last winter. They have not sought publicity for their views, if they have any. They hide from cameras and dodge journalists. And thus have they become the inkblot in a kind of national Rorschach test: Everyone sees in them the political issue they care about most, whether it’s welfare dependency, budget cuts, the decline of public education or — my personal favorite — the rise of a vulgar and amoral public culture.

And yet it is their lack of politics that most clearly defines them. If the Egyptians in Tahrir Square wanted democracy and the anarchists in Athens wanted more government spending, the hooded men in British streets want 46-inch flat-screen HD televisions. They aren’t smashing the headquarters of the Tory Party; they are smashing clothing shops. Instead of using social media to create civil society or cyber-utopia, they are using social media to steal. Someone circulated a text message on Monday night, calling friends to central London for “Pure terror and havoc & Free stuff. Just smash shop windows and cart out da stuff u want!”

Aside from stealing, a lot of the rioters — maybe most of the rioters — were also out to have a good time. Don’t be fooled by the stiff-upper-lip cliches: From Wat Tyler’s medieval peasant rebels to the modern soccer hooligans, there is a time-honored tradition of smashing things for fun in Britain, and the groups that enjoy it have been around for a long time. It doesn’t take very many of them to do a lot of damage. As of Wednesday morning, police had arrested 768 people, according to the BBC, and charged 105 in connection with violence in the capital. Overnight, London was calm for the first time since riots began last week.

I’m not counting out the other possible explanations, many of which would be worth investigating even if these riots had never occurred. The welfare state really has left a generation of young people feeling both dependent on government handouts and entitled to more. Poor state education has left as many as a fifth of British teenagers functionally illiterate.

The slow economy means many will never find jobs and thus will never integrate into the mainstream. The presence of the world’s oligarchs and billionaires in London means the city has an economic gap that is unusually wide for the developed world. The tabloid press thrives on envy of the rich and cult-worship of boorish celebrities. Traditional institutions — the school system, churches, even the BBC — long ago lost their ability to transmit older values. A spate of scandals has recently discredited the banks, Parliament, the media and the London police even further.

And yet — there was looting in London after the Great Fire of 1666 and, despite the mythology, there was looting in London during the Blitz. Go back and read Dickens: Criminals, both immigrant and “native” British, have taken advantage of opportunities to loot in London during more peaceful times, too. A peculiar confluence of circumstances — a mob angry about a police murder, a sudden bout of warm weather, an unprepared police force distracted by scandal and, yes, the astonishingly widespread availability of smartphones among the underprivileged — might have allowed them to do so again. Beware of broad political generalizations in the wake of these riots: We don’t know whether we have just witnessed a “new” phenomenon, or a more mobile and technically adept version of a very old one.

No. of words: 756 Starting Time:__ Ending Time: Reading Speed:

1) What is the Main Point/Central Idea of the passage?

--- --- 2) Write the summary of the passage?

--- --- --- --- --- Vocabulary:

Passage 26 DAY 26

Foreigners visiting New York or Chicago in the 19th century often came away with conflicting feelings. Some found American cities ugly by comparison to their European counterparts: They seemed vulgar, blatantly commercial, lacking in taste. The natives had higher living standards but they were crude, and the ethnic mix — German, Irish, Italian and Jewish — was terrifying.

A few sensed that there might be something in this new civilization worth admiring. “It is an absorbing thing to watch the process of world-making, both the formation of the natural and the conventional world,” an English traveller, Harriet Martineau, wrote in 1837: “I witnessed both in America; and when I look back upon it now, it seems as if I had been in another planet.”

33 I thought about those old visions of urban America while strolling not long ago through the Marina, a neighbourhood in

“new” Dubai (as opposed to “old” Dubai, mostly constructed in the 1970s). The architects were hired in 1999, and the first phase was finished in 2004; soon, the Marina will contain 120,000 people, along with hotels, restaurants, yacht moorings, shopping malls and canals, meant to remind visitors of Venice. It might go bankrupt — it has once already;

Dubai is plagued by real estate bubbles — but dozens of brand-new skyscrapers, some still with their scaffolding around them, are nevertheless pushing upward around the Persian Gulf.

The Marina, to a jaded American eye, is incurably vulgar. So is the rest of the city. There is almost no evidence of history or local culture. International brand names, from Applebees to Rolex, are plastered everywhere. Everything is imported, from the raw fish at Nobu to the coffee at Starbucks. In Abu Dhabi, the emirate down the road, they’ve bought the names “Louvre” and “Guggenheim” and are constructing museums to match. I am instinctively appalled — how can you buy the Louvre? — but perhaps visiting Europeans once felt the same way about Henry Frick’s New York mansion and the Old Masters within it.

The architecture is ersatz, too. Sometimes there are local elements — the odd Arabian Nights turret, a fake souk — but the tallest building in the world, the Burj Khalifa, distinctly resembles Chicago’s Willis Tower (which also used to be the tallest building in the world). This is no accident: Both buildings were designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, also from Chicago. If the fountains around the Burj Khalifa (illuminated by 6,600 lights at night) seem like something out of Las Vegas, that’s no accident either: They were designed by the same company that built the fountains at the Bellagio hotel and casino.

Just as some Europeans were offended by 19th-century America, I was stunned by the wealth of Dubai’s inhabitants and visitors: Someone must be buying all those Rolexes and staying in the executive suites at the Armani Hotel. I am also intrigued by the ethnic mix. Indian, Nigerian, Japanese, British, Russian, Filipino and Australian sunbathers mix with the occasional Emirati in a white headdress on the Marina’s beaches. Women in bikinis walk by women in burqas. Everyone talks on cell phones.

Yet this apparently harmonious, multi-ethnic society has a dark side. Occasionally, the invisible Arab police state arrests a tourist for an alleged indecent gesture or deport somebody without explanation. Nobody protests, because almost nobody “lives” in Dubai, in the sense that a 19th-century immigrant actually lived in New York. Less than 20percent of Dubai’s 1.7 million inhabitants are citizens: The rest are ex-pat bankers and traders — there is no income tax in Dubai — or low-wage labourers, mostly from South Asia, some of whom live like indentured servants.

No wonder they aren’t bothered by the vulgarity of the place: They’re probably going to move somewhere else next year anyway. And a transient population isn’t likely to launch a movement for democracy or political rights. If they protest, they risk expulsion. The natives aren’t excited about the prospect of majority rule either, since the majority is foreign. That’s why you’ve heard nothing about Dubai since the start of the Arab Spring.

Similarly to 19th-century Europeans’ thoughts about America, I resist the idea that Dubai heralds the civilization of the future. But I have to concede that in some senses it might. Not only Singapore and Hong Kong but parts of central London, now populated by transient bankers and their semi-legal Filipino servants, have more in common with Dubai than with their own hinterlands, even if the architecture is different. I can also see how Dubai, which is clean, law-abiding and well-run, might seem like a haven if one were coming from a messy, violent society such as Pakistan or even

In document QA Book (Page 86-130)

Ending Time:______ Reading Speed:______

No. of words: 470 Starting Time:________