The following can be derived about Cathcart's work from the passage, except _____________________. 

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Walton and Cockcroft: the names don't carry quite the same historic resonance as Watson and Crick. Yet the most enduring work of Ernest Walton and John Cockcroft -- splitting the nucleus of the atom -- can hold its own with the discovery of DNA's structure among the turning points of 20th-century science, and now, with Brian Cathcart's ''Fly in the Cathedral,'' they even get their own ''Double Helix,'' sort of.

In that unlikely 1968 best seller, James Watson created a new kind of popular science book, one that unveils the human side of science -- the ambition, pride, ill will and possible thievery that, arguably, play as great a role in revolutionary breakthroughs as objective evaluations of empirical evidence do. Ambition, pride, ill will and possible thievery might well have played a 10role at Cambridge in 1932 -- 21 years before Watson and Francis Crick walked into the Eagle pub there one lunchtime and famously crowed that they'd just discovered the secret of life -- but you wouldn't know it from the historical record. Back in the early 1930's, young university researchers in Britain were still taking direction from the last vestiges of what Cathcart calls ''the age of the gentleman scientist,'' from pillars of probity who manned their workbenches with a seemingly thorough disregard for the outside world -- the scientific equivalent of a stiff upper lip.

For Walton and Cockcroft, that pillar was Sir Ernest Rutherford. At a time when physicists had begun to challenge the prevailing model of the atom as a kind of permeable pudding filled with plum like electrons, it was Rutherford who arrived at an alternate model, one consisting almost entirely of empty space. The outermost electrons, Rutherford proposed, would define the farthest 20boundary of this near void, while a nucleus, dense enough to deflect a few incoming particles yet compact enough so that the vast majority would miss, would reside at the center like ''a gnat in the Albert Hall,'' in Rutherford's words. Or, in a popular analogy of the day, like a fly in a cathedral. In 1929 Rutherford, by then the director of the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, assigned Walton and Cockcroft the task of catching that fly and splitting it.

They weren't alone. Several competitors in the States were also trying to swat the nucleus, a pursuit that inaugurated not only a new theoretical era of nuclear physics, but a new technological era of ''big physics.'' The kind of equipment Walton, Cockcroft and their contemporaries had to improvise would never again fit on one gentleman's workbench. Today some particle accelerators are so vast, Cathcart writes, they ''may be seen from space.''

30Cathcart devotes much of the book to the inner workings of lab machinery, and for good reason. His two central characters were hardly colorful. Cockcroft was ''an exceptionally good listener,'' but said so little that his children had a rule ''that Daddy could not leave the dinner table until he had uttered two whole sentences,'' Cathcart reports. And while the British author C. P. Snow recounted how Cockcroft took to the streets of Cambridge announcing, ''We've split the atom. We've split the atom,'' on the day of the crucial breakthrough, the anecdote is almost certainly apocryphal. The two scientists had sworn to tell no one the secret on which their professional lives now depended. Moreover, as Snow himself noted, Cockcroft led ''a singularly modest and self-effacing life.''

The same may be said of Walton. After reuniting with a sweetheart from his Belfast school days, 40he addressed his courtship letters to his future wife ''Dear Miss Wilson'' and signed them ''Ernest Walton.''

When Walton and Cockcroft began their collaboration in 1929, they hardly knew each other, and when they split the nucleus of an atom three years later, that still seemed to be the case. Given their limitations as heroes, it's not surprising that Cathcart would devote six pages to the design of the rectifier, a dizzyingly complex piece of scientific equipment, and only one brisk paragraph to the death of Cockcroft's ''beautiful and much adored'' 2-year-old son.

Cathcart, a former reporter for Reuters and The Independent of London, may lack a formal background in physics, but he has a talent for making the scientific process accessible to non-specialists. When he focuses on the pursuit rather than the pursuers, he captures the considerable 50suspense and exhilaration among physicists of the 20's and 30's solving some of the fundamental questions about the workings of the universe. ''The gods on Olympus did not have a better time,'' he writes. It's unfortunate that Walton and Cockcroft were apparently constitutionally incapable of joining the fun.

But in the end, they got the credit. Einstein himself said that E = mc2 was demonstrated experimentally by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932. In 1951 they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. And thanks to Cathcart's meticulous reconstruction of their finest hour, they're now enjoying a further moment of glory. As characters, however, Walton and Cockcroft were no Watson and Crick.

They were, for better or worse, gentlemen.

The phenomenon of bias avoidance can be attributed to ___________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Women's lack of progress in academe is well documented: in its 1999-2000 report, the AAUP's Committee on the Economic Status of the Profession found "sinking evidence of a distorted gender distribution by rank." Women are more likely than men to end up in low-paid, non-tenure-track positions that are often a dead end. Women who do manage to secure tenure-track jobs are less likely than men to be at four-year colleges; those at four-year institutions are less likely to be at highly ranked research universities. Why?

Part of the problem is gender bias, of two different types. The more familiar is the "glass ceiling" that prevents successful women from reaching the summit of their professions. What exactly is the glass ceiling? Usually, it is defined demographically by documenting the dearth of women at the top. That is why there is a dearth of women, when most academics-men as well as women-see themselves as committed to gender equality. Little information exists to help academic administrators who are determined to give women a fair shake.

In addition, many women never get near the glass ceiling because of the "maternal wall," a type of gender bias I described in a 2004 article in Employee Rights and Employment Policy Law Review. Like the glass ceiling, the maternal wall is documented demographically by showing the dearth of mothers in desirable faculty jobs. Women who have children soon after receiving their PhDs are much less likely to achieve tenure than men who have children at the same point in their careers. About 45 percent of tenured women are childless, according to University of California, Berkeley, Dean Mary Ann Mason, whose article with UC Berkeley researcher Marc Goulden appears elsewhere in this issue. The high percentage of women without children may well be linked to "bias avoidance": the attempt to avoid the maternal wall by deferring or avoiding having children, as documented in economist Robert Drago's important work.

Again, demographic documentation of the maternal wall gives well-meaning administrators little guidance on how it arises. Depressing demography does not give much guidance on how to avoid more depressing demography in the future. This article does. It describes, in lay terms, the patterns of stereotyping and gender bias that create the glass ceiling and the maternal wall. Drawing on a review of over one hundred studies, it presents the latest findings of empirical social psychology in readily usable form.

The "commonsense" view of stereotyping is of an employer who misuses demography by assuming, for example, that because mothers as a group cut back their hours after they have kids, a particular woman will do so. Economists call this thinking "statistical discrimination"; social psychologists call it "descriptive stereotyping." When an employer disadvantages women by assuming they will conform to a stereotype, "cognitive bias" is often involved. The term refers to the insight that much bias-based on gender, race, and other social categories-stems from the ways in which stereotypes shape perception, memory, and inferences.

Another kind of stereotyping, described by business school professor Diana Burgess and social psychologist Eugene Dorgida is "prescriptive stereotyping." Such stereotyping doesn't just assume stereotypical behavior; it tries to require it. In one case, Bailey v. Scott-Gallaher, Inc., an employer fired an employee who sought to return from maternity leave on the grounds that mothers should stay at home until their children are grown.

Stereotypes often produce relatively small differences, but they add up over time. According to social psychologist Virginia Valian, "Success is largely the accumulation of advantage, exploiting small gains to get bigger ones." One experiment by Valian set up a model that built in a tiny bin in favor of promoting men; after a while, 65 percent of top-level employees were male. Conversely, the "accumulation of disadvantage" for women creates very real job detriments.

The glass ceiling is composed of two different patterns. One makes it harder for women to be perceived as competent. Women's successful performance tends to be more closely scrutinized, and assessed by stricter standards than men's. Men also have to give more convincing demonstrations of incompetence to be judged incompetent overall, according to social psychologist Martha Foschi.

Women's struggle to establish competence is exacerbated both by the exercise of discretion and in the way that supposedly objective rules are applied. Studies by Marilyn Brewer have shown that when applying objective rules, men tend to create exceptions for men or to give them "the benefit of the doubt," a pattern called "leniency bias." To quote Brewer, "Coldly objective judgment seems to be reserved for members of out groups." For example, a search committee may require "all candidates" to have their dissertations completed, only to waive this requirement for a young man who comes with the "right recommendations" and "shows great promise." Indeed, social psychologists have documented that men tend to be judged on whether they show promise, whereas women in similar circumstances are often judged strictly on what they have actually accomplished.

Kay Deaux and Kim Emswiller have also shown that people tend to attribute their own behavior, or that of their in group, to stable causes, while they attribute the behavior of out groups to situational causes: he's brilliant, but she just got lucky. This tendency is called "attribution bias."

In addition, facts that fit a given stereotype are more accurately recalled than facts that do not, a pattern called "recall bias." Members of an in group are more likely to recall undesirable behavior committed by members of an out group than by in-group members. As a result, women professionals may have to try harder than men to be perceived as competent because their mistakes are remembered long after men's are forgotten.

What is true about the East West Theatre?

I. It acts as a base stone to launch talent and refine it for the outside world. II. It unifies the cultural diversity and brings it in the forefront. III. It is a matchless piece of genius.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Women's lack of progress in academe is well documented: in its 1999-2000 report, the AAUP's Committee on the Economic Status of the Profession found "sinking evidence of a distorted gender distribution by rank." Women are more likely than men to end up in low-paid, non-tenure-track positions that are often a dead end. Women who do manage to secure tenure-track jobs are less likely than men to be at four-year colleges; those at four-year institutions are less likely to be at highly ranked research universities. Why?

Part of the problem is gender bias, of two different types. The more familiar is the "glass ceiling" that prevents successful women from reaching the summit of their professions. What exactly is the glass ceiling? Usually, it is defined demographically by documenting the dearth of women at the top. That is why there is a dearth of women, when most academics-men as well as women-see themselves as committed to gender equality. Little information exists to help academic administrators who are determined to give women a fair shake.

In addition, many women never get near the glass ceiling because of the "maternal wall," a type of gender bias I described in a 2004 article in Employee Rights and Employment Policy Law Review. Like the glass ceiling, the maternal wall is documented demographically by showing the dearth of mothers in desirable faculty jobs. Women who have children soon after receiving their PhDs are much less likely to achieve tenure than men who have children at the same point in their careers. About 45 percent of tenured women are childless, according to University of California, Berkeley, Dean Mary Ann Mason, whose article with UC Berkeley researcher Marc Goulden appears elsewhere in this issue. The high percentage of women without children may well be linked to "bias avoidance": the attempt to avoid the maternal wall by deferring or avoiding having children, as documented in economist Robert Drago's important work.

Again, demographic documentation of the maternal wall gives well-meaning administrators little guidance on how it arises. Depressing demography does not give much guidance on how to avoid more depressing demography in the future. This article does. It describes, in lay terms, the patterns of stereotyping and gender bias that create the glass ceiling and the maternal wall. Drawing on a review of over one hundred studies, it presents the latest findings of empirical social psychology in readily usable form.

The "commonsense" view of stereotyping is of an employer who misuses demography by assuming, for example, that because mothers as a group cut back their hours after they have kids, a particular woman will do so. Economists call this thinking "statistical discrimination"; social psychologists call it "descriptive stereotyping." When an employer disadvantages women by assuming they will conform to a stereotype, "cognitive bias" is often involved. The term refers to the insight that much bias-based on gender, race, and other social categories-stems from the ways in which stereotypes shape perception, memory, and inferences.

Another kind of stereotyping, described by business school professor Diana Burgess and social psychologist Eugene Dorgida is "prescriptive stereotyping." Such stereotyping doesn't just assume stereotypical behavior; it tries to require it. In one case, Bailey v. Scott-Gallaher, Inc., an employer fired an employee who sought to return from maternity leave on the grounds that mothers should stay at home until their children are grown.

Stereotypes often produce relatively small differences, but they add up over time. According to social psychologist Virginia Valian, "Success is largely the accumulation of advantage, exploiting small gains to get bigger ones." One experiment by Valian set up a model that built in a tiny bin in favor of promoting men; after a while, 65 percent of top-level employees were male. Conversely, the "accumulation of disadvantage" for women creates very real job detriments.

The glass ceiling is composed of two different patterns. One makes it harder for women to be perceived as competent. Women's successful performance tends to be more closely scrutinized, and assessed by stricter standards than men's. Men also have to give more convincing demonstrations of incompetence to be judged incompetent overall, according to social psychologist Martha Foschi.

Women's struggle to establish competence is exacerbated both by the exercise of discretion and in the way that supposedly objective rules are applied. Studies by Marilyn Brewer have shown that when applying objective rules, men tend to create exceptions for men or to give them "the benefit of the doubt," a pattern called "leniency bias." To quote Brewer, "Coldly objective judgment seems to be reserved for members of out groups." For example, a search committee may require "all candidates" to have their dissertations completed, only to waive this requirement for a young man who comes with the "right recommendations" and "shows great promise." Indeed, social psychologists have documented that men tend to be judged on whether they show promise, whereas women in similar circumstances are often judged strictly on what they have actually accomplished.

Kay Deaux and Kim Emswiller have also shown that people tend to attribute their own behavior, or that of their in group, to stable causes, while they attribute the behavior of out groups to situational causes: he's brilliant, but she just got lucky. This tendency is called "attribution bias."

In addition, facts that fit a given stereotype are more accurately recalled than facts that do not, a pattern called "recall bias." Members of an in group are more likely to recall undesirable behavior committed by members of an out group than by in-group members. As a result, women professionals may have to try harder than men to be perceived as competent because their mistakes are remembered long after men's are forgotten.

What is the main purpose of the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Women's lack of progress in academe is well documented: in its 1999-2000 report, the AAUP's Committee on the Economic Status of the Profession found "sinking evidence of a distorted gender distribution by rank." Women are more likely than men to end up in low-paid, non-tenure-track positions that are often a dead end. Women who do manage to secure tenure-track jobs are less likely than men to be at four-year colleges; those at four-year institutions are less likely to be at highly ranked research universities. Why?

Part of the problem is gender bias, of two different types. The more familiar is the "glass ceiling" that prevents successful women from reaching the summit of their professions. What exactly is the glass ceiling? Usually, it is defined demographically by documenting the dearth of women at the top. That is why there is a dearth of women, when most academics-men as well as women-see themselves as committed to gender equality. Little information exists to help academic administrators who are determined to give women a fair shake.

In addition, many women never get near the glass ceiling because of the "maternal wall," a type of gender bias I described in a 2004 article in Employee Rights and Employment Policy Law Review. Like the glass ceiling, the maternal wall is documented demographically by showing the dearth of mothers in desirable faculty jobs. Women who have children soon after receiving their PhDs are much less likely to achieve tenure than men who have children at the same point in their careers. About 45 percent of tenured women are childless, according to University of California, Berkeley, Dean Mary Ann Mason, whose article with UC Berkeley researcher Marc Goulden appears elsewhere in this issue. The high percentage of women without children may well be linked to "bias avoidance": the attempt to avoid the maternal wall by deferring or avoiding having children, as documented in economist Robert Drago's important work.

Again, demographic documentation of the maternal wall gives well-meaning administrators little guidance on how it arises. Depressing demography does not give much guidance on how to avoid more depressing demography in the future. This article does. It describes, in lay terms, the patterns of stereotyping and gender bias that create the glass ceiling and the maternal wall. Drawing on a review of over one hundred studies, it presents the latest findings of empirical social psychology in readily usable form.

The "commonsense" view of stereotyping is of an employer who misuses demography by assuming, for example, that because mothers as a group cut back their hours after they have kids, a particular woman will do so. Economists call this thinking "statistical discrimination"; social psychologists call it "descriptive stereotyping." When an employer disadvantages women by assuming they will conform to a stereotype, "cognitive bias" is often involved. The term refers to the insight that much bias-based on gender, race, and other social categories-stems from the ways in which stereotypes shape perception, memory, and inferences.

Another kind of stereotyping, described by business school professor Diana Burgess and social psychologist Eugene Dorgida is "prescriptive stereotyping." Such stereotyping doesn't just assume stereotypical behavior; it tries to require it. In one case, Bailey v. Scott-Gallaher, Inc., an employer fired an employee who sought to return from maternity leave on the grounds that mothers should stay at home until their children are grown.

Stereotypes often produce relatively small differences, but they add up over time. According to social psychologist Virginia Valian, "Success is largely the accumulation of advantage, exploiting small gains to get bigger ones." One experiment by Valian set up a model that built in a tiny bin in favor of promoting men; after a while, 65 percent of top-level employees were male. Conversely, the "accumulation of disadvantage" for women creates very real job detriments.

The glass ceiling is composed of two different patterns. One makes it harder for women to be perceived as competent. Women's successful performance tends to be more closely scrutinized, and assessed by stricter standards than men's. Men also have to give more convincing demonstrations of incompetence to be judged incompetent overall, according to social psychologist Martha Foschi.

Women's struggle to establish competence is exacerbated both by the exercise of discretion and in the way that supposedly objective rules are applied. Studies by Marilyn Brewer have shown that when applying objective rules, men tend to create exceptions for men or to give them "the benefit of the doubt," a pattern called "leniency bias." To quote Brewer, "Coldly objective judgment seems to be reserved for members of out groups." For example, a search committee may require "all candidates" to have their dissertations completed, only to waive this requirement for a young man who comes with the "right recommendations" and "shows great promise." Indeed, social psychologists have documented that men tend to be judged on whether they show promise, whereas women in similar circumstances are often judged strictly on what they have actually accomplished.

Kay Deaux and Kim Emswiller have also shown that people tend to attribute their own behavior, or that of their in group, to stable causes, while they attribute the behavior of out groups to situational causes: he's brilliant, but she just got lucky. This tendency is called "attribution bias."

In addition, facts that fit a given stereotype are more accurately recalled than facts that do not, a pattern called "recall bias." Members of an in group are more likely to recall undesirable behavior committed by members of an out group than by in-group members. As a result, women professionals may have to try harder than men to be perceived as competent because their mistakes are remembered long after men's are forgotten.

The term “feminum” applied to the metal of the wonder woman's wrist band can be called __________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman, in fact, has a complicated, even schizophrenic, heritage. She’s been portrayed by such diverse actors as the perky Cathy Lee Crosby and Lynda Carter, who endowed her with both a competent, working woman aura and a dose of eroticism (Lynda Carter, I discovered, is the subject of a lot of Wonder Woman fetishist erotica on the Internet these days). An Internet poll about who should play Wonder Woman, if the series were revived today, uncovered equally diverse ideas— people suggested Cher, Lucy Lawless, Angela Bassett, and Demi Moore. Clearly, in our cultural imagination, Wonder Woman is a character with many faces.

Things only get more complicated when you consider the frame narrative that explains 10 Wonder Woman’s existence. She was born as Princess Diana (interestingly paralleling another icon of womanhood) in an Amazon community that seems pretty clearly grounded in lesbianism. Although the women in this harmonious and idyllic Amazon community have gone to great lengths to hide and protect their island from incursions by men, they are nonetheless delighted when a male American army officer inadvertently crash-lands in their utopia. So smitten with him are they, in fact, that they stage a ruthless physical competition to decide who will get to pair off with him. When Diana (later Wonder Woman) wins, she happily abandons her position as a royal ruler of the Amazons to accompany him back to the United States and take a boring desk job as a lowly secretary in the army. She even trades in her cool Amazon garb for a pair of glasses 20and a meek, submissive manner.

Of course, these good-girl accoutrements can’t hold Wonder Woman’s Amazon nature in check. Faced with evil or danger, she spins herself into a wild tornado and emerges in her glamorous (though seemingly impractical) star-spangled swimsuit and kinky, high-heeled go-go boots. She skillfully pilots an invisible airplane, wields a golden lasso, and fends off bullets with her wristbands made of a mysterious metal called “feminum.” In the name of the “forces of justice and freedom,” Wonder Woman will scrap with just about anyone— originally created to fight Nazis, she actually goes on to replicate their white-supremacist doctrines, killing off Japanese people whom her comic book portrays as demonic, and fighting to the death against her African double, Nubia. In a recent comic 30book, she completely abandons the apparently socialist tenets of the Amazons and emerges as a champion of capitalist entrepreneurialism, saving a trendy, financially lucrative urban bistro from the machinations of a computer geek. To quote the superhero herself, “Great Hera!” —can’t she get her politics straight?

Of course, all of these contradictions within Wonder Woman point to the evolution of and contradictions within our social constructions of womanhood. One of the founding principles of feminist criticism is the need to be conscious of the ways that gender is a constructed category, to realize that there is nothing inherent or essential about what we associate with the feminine. As first-wave feminist Simone de Beauvoir put it, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman; . . . it is civilization as a whole that produces this 40creature which is described as feminine.” But beyond this foundational acknowledgement of social construction (and even this concept is debated within feminism) and a general concern with the effects of power, there is little that binds what we call “feminist criticism” into a homogeneous, or even very coherent, doctrine. There are Marxist feminists who are concerned with the way economic oppression coincides with gender; linguistically based feminists who are interested in uncovering how the very structure of language itself betrays a masculine bias and in finding new modes of expression to better accommodate women. There are feminists who look for evidence of subversive resistance and empowerment in the history of women and feminists who are interested in tracing oppression and victimization.

50Feminist criticism is expanding into a more general level to include such areas as the construction of masculinity and the constitution of sexual orientation. It is being infused with insights from the realm of Queer Theory complicated by post-colonial scholars and scholars of race who consider the ways gender intersects with nationalism, class, and race. As feminist critic Theresa de Lauretis suggests, “A new conception of the subject is, in fact, emerging from feminist analyses of women’s heterogeneous subjectivity and multiple identities . . . the differences among women may be better understood as differences within women.” It is important to realize that not only does feminism as a movement exist in the face of these contradictions and complications—within feminist criticism, within gender studies, within individual literary texts and within our 60understanding of the individual woman as a subject—but that it cannot exist without them. Perhaps, like Wonder Woman, feminist criticism remains vital because it is astonishingly diverse, open, and rigorously self-problematizing.

To which literary genre does the phrase, ''may be seen from space'' belong?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Walton and Cockcroft: the names don't carry quite the same historic resonance as Watson and Crick. Yet the most enduring work of Ernest Walton and John Cockcroft -- splitting the nucleus of the atom -- can hold its own with the discovery of DNA's structure among the turning points of 20th-century science, and now, with Brian Cathcart's ''Fly in the Cathedral,'' they even get their own ''Double Helix,'' sort of.

In that unlikely 1968 best seller, James Watson created a new kind of popular science book, one that unveils the human side of science -- the ambition, pride, ill will and possible thievery that, arguably, play as great a role in revolutionary breakthroughs as objective evaluations of empirical evidence do. Ambition, pride, ill will and possible thievery might well have played a 10role at Cambridge in 1932 -- 21 years before Watson and Francis Crick walked into the Eagle pub there one lunchtime and famously crowed that they'd just discovered the secret of life -- but you wouldn't know it from the historical record. Back in the early 1930's, young university researchers in Britain were still taking direction from the last vestiges of what Cathcart calls ''the age of the gentleman scientist,'' from pillars of probity who manned their workbenches with a seemingly thorough disregard for the outside world -- the scientific equivalent of a stiff upper lip.

For Walton and Cockcroft, that pillar was Sir Ernest Rutherford. At a time when physicists had begun to challenge the prevailing model of the atom as a kind of permeable pudding filled with plum like electrons, it was Rutherford who arrived at an alternate model, one consisting almost entirely of empty space. The outermost electrons, Rutherford proposed, would define the farthest 20boundary of this near void, while a nucleus, dense enough to deflect a few incoming particles yet compact enough so that the vast majority would miss, would reside at the center like ''a gnat in the Albert Hall,'' in Rutherford's words. Or, in a popular analogy of the day, like a fly in a cathedral. In 1929 Rutherford, by then the director of the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, assigned Walton and Cockcroft the task of catching that fly and splitting it.

They weren't alone. Several competitors in the States were also trying to swat the nucleus, a pursuit that inaugurated not only a new theoretical era of nuclear physics, but a new technological era of ''big physics.'' The kind of equipment Walton, Cockcroft and their contemporaries had to improvise would never again fit on one gentleman's workbench. Today some particle accelerators are so vast, Cathcart writes, they ''may be seen from space.''

30Cathcart devotes much of the book to the inner workings of lab machinery, and for good reason. His two central characters were hardly colorful. Cockcroft was ''an exceptionally good listener,'' but said so little that his children had a rule ''that Daddy could not leave the dinner table until he had uttered two whole sentences,'' Cathcart reports. And while the British author C. P. Snow recounted how Cockcroft took to the streets of Cambridge announcing, ''We've split the atom. We've split the atom,'' on the day of the crucial breakthrough, the anecdote is almost certainly apocryphal. The two scientists had sworn to tell no one the secret on which their professional lives now depended. Moreover, as Snow himself noted, Cockcroft led ''a singularly modest and self-effacing life.''

The same may be said of Walton. After reuniting with a sweetheart from his Belfast school days, 40he addressed his courtship letters to his future wife ''Dear Miss Wilson'' and signed them ''Ernest Walton.''

When Walton and Cockcroft began their collaboration in 1929, they hardly knew each other, and when they split the nucleus of an atom three years later, that still seemed to be the case. Given their limitations as heroes, it's not surprising that Cathcart would devote six pages to the design of the rectifier, a dizzyingly complex piece of scientific equipment, and only one brisk paragraph to the death of Cockcroft's ''beautiful and much adored'' 2-year-old son.

Cathcart, a former reporter for Reuters and The Independent of London, may lack a formal background in physics, but he has a talent for making the scientific process accessible to non-specialists. When he focuses on the pursuit rather than the pursuers, he captures the considerable 50suspense and exhilaration among physicists of the 20's and 30's solving some of the fundamental questions about the workings of the universe. ''The gods on Olympus did not have a better time,'' he writes. It's unfortunate that Walton and Cockcroft were apparently constitutionally incapable of joining the fun.

But in the end, they got the credit. Einstein himself said that E = mc2 was demonstrated experimentally by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932. In 1951 they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. And thanks to Cathcart's meticulous reconstruction of their finest hour, they're now enjoying a further moment of glory. As characters, however, Walton and Cockcroft were no Watson and Crick.

They were, for better or worse, gentlemen.

Apart from gender bias, what other factor can be best attributed to the women's lack of progress in the professional world?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Women's lack of progress in academe is well documented: in its 1999-2000 report, the AAUP's Committee on the Economic Status of the Profession found "sinking evidence of a distorted gender distribution by rank." Women are more likely than men to end up in low-paid, non-tenure-track positions that are often a dead end. Women who do manage to secure tenure-track jobs are less likely than men to be at four-year colleges; those at four-year institutions are less likely to be at highly ranked research universities. Why?

Part of the problem is gender bias, of two different types. The more familiar is the "glass ceiling" that prevents successful women from reaching the summit of their professions. What exactly is the glass ceiling? Usually, it is defined demographically by documenting the dearth of women at the top. That is why there is a dearth of women, when most academics-men as well as women-see themselves as committed to gender equality. Little information exists to help academic administrators who are determined to give women a fair shake.

In addition, many women never get near the glass ceiling because of the "maternal wall," a type of gender bias I described in a 2004 article in Employee Rights and Employment Policy Law Review. Like the glass ceiling, the maternal wall is documented demographically by showing the dearth of mothers in desirable faculty jobs. Women who have children soon after receiving their PhDs are much less likely to achieve tenure than men who have children at the same point in their careers. About 45 percent of tenured women are childless, according to University of California, Berkeley, Dean Mary Ann Mason, whose article with UC Berkeley researcher Marc Goulden appears elsewhere in this issue. The high percentage of women without children may well be linked to "bias avoidance": the attempt to avoid the maternal wall by deferring or avoiding having children, as documented in economist Robert Drago's important work.

Again, demographic documentation of the maternal wall gives well-meaning administrators little guidance on how it arises. Depressing demography does not give much guidance on how to avoid more depressing demography in the future. This article does. It describes, in lay terms, the patterns of stereotyping and gender bias that create the glass ceiling and the maternal wall. Drawing on a review of over one hundred studies, it presents the latest findings of empirical social psychology in readily usable form.

The "commonsense" view of stereotyping is of an employer who misuses demography by assuming, for example, that because mothers as a group cut back their hours after they have kids, a particular woman will do so. Economists call this thinking "statistical discrimination"; social psychologists call it "descriptive stereotyping." When an employer disadvantages women by assuming they will conform to a stereotype, "cognitive bias" is often involved. The term refers to the insight that much bias-based on gender, race, and other social categories-stems from the ways in which stereotypes shape perception, memory, and inferences.

Another kind of stereotyping, described by business school professor Diana Burgess and social psychologist Eugene Dorgida is "prescriptive stereotyping." Such stereotyping doesn't just assume stereotypical behavior; it tries to require it. In one case, Bailey v. Scott-Gallaher, Inc., an employer fired an employee who sought to return from maternity leave on the grounds that mothers should stay at home until their children are grown.

Stereotypes often produce relatively small differences, but they add up over time. According to social psychologist Virginia Valian, "Success is largely the accumulation of advantage, exploiting small gains to get bigger ones." One experiment by Valian set up a model that built in a tiny bin in favor of promoting men; after a while, 65 percent of top-level employees were male. Conversely, the "accumulation of disadvantage" for women creates very real job detriments.

The glass ceiling is composed of two different patterns. One makes it harder for women to be perceived as competent. Women's successful performance tends to be more closely scrutinized, and assessed by stricter standards than men's. Men also have to give more convincing demonstrations of incompetence to be judged incompetent overall, according to social psychologist Martha Foschi.

Women's struggle to establish competence is exacerbated both by the exercise of discretion and in the way that supposedly objective rules are applied. Studies by Marilyn Brewer have shown that when applying objective rules, men tend to create exceptions for men or to give them "the benefit of the doubt," a pattern called "leniency bias." To quote Brewer, "Coldly objective judgment seems to be reserved for members of out groups." For example, a search committee may require "all candidates" to have their dissertations completed, only to waive this requirement for a young man who comes with the "right recommendations" and "shows great promise." Indeed, social psychologists have documented that men tend to be judged on whether they show promise, whereas women in similar circumstances are often judged strictly on what they have actually accomplished.

Kay Deaux and Kim Emswiller have also shown that people tend to attribute their own behavior, or that of their in group, to stable causes, while they attribute the behavior of out groups to situational causes: he's brilliant, but she just got lucky. This tendency is called "attribution bias."

In addition, facts that fit a given stereotype are more accurately recalled than facts that do not, a pattern called "recall bias." Members of an in group are more likely to recall undesirable behavior committed by members of an out group than by in-group members. As a result, women professionals may have to try harder than men to be perceived as competent because their mistakes are remembered long after men's are forgotten.

According to the passage, Sir Ernest Rutherford made the following contributions to the world of science except ____________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Walton and Cockcroft: the names don't carry quite the same historic resonance as Watson and Crick. Yet the most enduring work of Ernest Walton and John Cockcroft -- splitting the nucleus of the atom -- can hold its own with the discovery of DNA's structure among the turning points of 20th-century science, and now, with Brian Cathcart's ''Fly in the Cathedral,'' they even get their own ''Double Helix,'' sort of.

In that unlikely 1968 best seller, James Watson created a new kind of popular science book, one that unveils the human side of science -- the ambition, pride, ill will and possible thievery that, arguably, play as great a role in revolutionary breakthroughs as objective evaluations of empirical evidence do. Ambition, pride, ill will and possible thievery might well have played a 10role at Cambridge in 1932 -- 21 years before Watson and Francis Crick walked into the Eagle pub there one lunchtime and famously crowed that they'd just discovered the secret of life -- but you wouldn't know it from the historical record. Back in the early 1930's, young university researchers in Britain were still taking direction from the last vestiges of what Cathcart calls ''the age of the gentleman scientist,'' from pillars of probity who manned their workbenches with a seemingly thorough disregard for the outside world -- the scientific equivalent of a stiff upper lip.

For Walton and Cockcroft, that pillar was Sir Ernest Rutherford. At a time when physicists had begun to challenge the prevailing model of the atom as a kind of permeable pudding filled with plum like electrons, it was Rutherford who arrived at an alternate model, one consisting almost entirely of empty space. The outermost electrons, Rutherford proposed, would define the farthest 20boundary of this near void, while a nucleus, dense enough to deflect a few incoming particles yet compact enough so that the vast majority would miss, would reside at the center like ''a gnat in the Albert Hall,'' in Rutherford's words. Or, in a popular analogy of the day, like a fly in a cathedral. In 1929 Rutherford, by then the director of the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, assigned Walton and Cockcroft the task of catching that fly and splitting it.

They weren't alone. Several competitors in the States were also trying to swat the nucleus, a pursuit that inaugurated not only a new theoretical era of nuclear physics, but a new technological era of ''big physics.'' The kind of equipment Walton, Cockcroft and their contemporaries had to improvise would never again fit on one gentleman's workbench. Today some particle accelerators are so vast, Cathcart writes, they ''may be seen from space.''

30Cathcart devotes much of the book to the inner workings of lab machinery, and for good reason. His two central characters were hardly colorful. Cockcroft was ''an exceptionally good listener,'' but said so little that his children had a rule ''that Daddy could not leave the dinner table until he had uttered two whole sentences,'' Cathcart reports. And while the British author C. P. Snow recounted how Cockcroft took to the streets of Cambridge announcing, ''We've split the atom. We've split the atom,'' on the day of the crucial breakthrough, the anecdote is almost certainly apocryphal. The two scientists had sworn to tell no one the secret on which their professional lives now depended. Moreover, as Snow himself noted, Cockcroft led ''a singularly modest and self-effacing life.''

The same may be said of Walton. After reuniting with a sweetheart from his Belfast school days, 40he addressed his courtship letters to his future wife ''Dear Miss Wilson'' and signed them ''Ernest Walton.''

When Walton and Cockcroft began their collaboration in 1929, they hardly knew each other, and when they split the nucleus of an atom three years later, that still seemed to be the case. Given their limitations as heroes, it's not surprising that Cathcart would devote six pages to the design of the rectifier, a dizzyingly complex piece of scientific equipment, and only one brisk paragraph to the death of Cockcroft's ''beautiful and much adored'' 2-year-old son.

Cathcart, a former reporter for Reuters and The Independent of London, may lack a formal background in physics, but he has a talent for making the scientific process accessible to non-specialists. When he focuses on the pursuit rather than the pursuers, he captures the considerable 50suspense and exhilaration among physicists of the 20's and 30's solving some of the fundamental questions about the workings of the universe. ''The gods on Olympus did not have a better time,'' he writes. It's unfortunate that Walton and Cockcroft were apparently constitutionally incapable of joining the fun.

But in the end, they got the credit. Einstein himself said that E = mc2 was demonstrated experimentally by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932. In 1951 they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. And thanks to Cathcart's meticulous reconstruction of their finest hour, they're now enjoying a further moment of glory. As characters, however, Walton and Cockcroft were no Watson and Crick.

They were, for better or worse, gentlemen.

''Double Helix'' in the first paragraph implies _________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Walton and Cockcroft: the names don't carry quite the same historic resonance as Watson and Crick. Yet the most enduring work of Ernest Walton and John Cockcroft -- splitting the nucleus of the atom -- can hold its own with the discovery of DNA's structure among the turning points of 20th-century science, and now, with Brian Cathcart's ''Fly in the Cathedral,'' they even get their own ''Double Helix,'' sort of.

In that unlikely 1968 best seller, James Watson created a new kind of popular science book, one that unveils the human side of science -- the ambition, pride, ill will and possible thievery that, arguably, play as great a role in revolutionary breakthroughs as objective evaluations of empirical evidence do. Ambition, pride, ill will and possible thievery might well have played a 10role at Cambridge in 1932 -- 21 years before Watson and Francis Crick walked into the Eagle pub there one lunchtime and famously crowed that they'd just discovered the secret of life -- but you wouldn't know it from the historical record. Back in the early 1930's, young university researchers in Britain were still taking direction from the last vestiges of what Cathcart calls ''the age of the gentleman scientist,'' from pillars of probity who manned their workbenches with a seemingly thorough disregard for the outside world -- the scientific equivalent of a stiff upper lip.

For Walton and Cockcroft, that pillar was Sir Ernest Rutherford. At a time when physicists had begun to challenge the prevailing model of the atom as a kind of permeable pudding filled with plum like electrons, it was Rutherford who arrived at an alternate model, one consisting almost entirely of empty space. The outermost electrons, Rutherford proposed, would define the farthest 20boundary of this near void, while a nucleus, dense enough to deflect a few incoming particles yet compact enough so that the vast majority would miss, would reside at the center like ''a gnat in the Albert Hall,'' in Rutherford's words. Or, in a popular analogy of the day, like a fly in a cathedral. In 1929 Rutherford, by then the director of the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, assigned Walton and Cockcroft the task of catching that fly and splitting it.

They weren't alone. Several competitors in the States were also trying to swat the nucleus, a pursuit that inaugurated not only a new theoretical era of nuclear physics, but a new technological era of ''big physics.'' The kind of equipment Walton, Cockcroft and their contemporaries had to improvise would never again fit on one gentleman's workbench. Today some particle accelerators are so vast, Cathcart writes, they ''may be seen from space.''

30Cathcart devotes much of the book to the inner workings of lab machinery, and for good reason. His two central characters were hardly colorful. Cockcroft was ''an exceptionally good listener,'' but said so little that his children had a rule ''that Daddy could not leave the dinner table until he had uttered two whole sentences,'' Cathcart reports. And while the British author C. P. Snow recounted how Cockcroft took to the streets of Cambridge announcing, ''We've split the atom. We've split the atom,'' on the day of the crucial breakthrough, the anecdote is almost certainly apocryphal. The two scientists had sworn to tell no one the secret on which their professional lives now depended. Moreover, as Snow himself noted, Cockcroft led ''a singularly modest and self-effacing life.''

The same may be said of Walton. After reuniting with a sweetheart from his Belfast school days, 40he addressed his courtship letters to his future wife ''Dear Miss Wilson'' and signed them ''Ernest Walton.''

When Walton and Cockcroft began their collaboration in 1929, they hardly knew each other, and when they split the nucleus of an atom three years later, that still seemed to be the case. Given their limitations as heroes, it's not surprising that Cathcart would devote six pages to the design of the rectifier, a dizzyingly complex piece of scientific equipment, and only one brisk paragraph to the death of Cockcroft's ''beautiful and much adored'' 2-year-old son.

Cathcart, a former reporter for Reuters and The Independent of London, may lack a formal background in physics, but he has a talent for making the scientific process accessible to non-specialists. When he focuses on the pursuit rather than the pursuers, he captures the considerable 50suspense and exhilaration among physicists of the 20's and 30's solving some of the fundamental questions about the workings of the universe. ''The gods on Olympus did not have a better time,'' he writes. It's unfortunate that Walton and Cockcroft were apparently constitutionally incapable of joining the fun.

But in the end, they got the credit. Einstein himself said that E = mc2 was demonstrated experimentally by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932. In 1951 they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. And thanks to Cathcart's meticulous reconstruction of their finest hour, they're now enjoying a further moment of glory. As characters, however, Walton and Cockcroft were no Watson and Crick.

They were, for better or worse, gentlemen.

What does the phrase “catching that fly and splitting it” means?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Walton and Cockcroft: the names don't carry quite the same historic resonance as Watson and Crick. Yet the most enduring work of Ernest Walton and John Cockcroft -- splitting the nucleus of the atom -- can hold its own with the discovery of DNA's structure among the turning points of 20th-century science, and now, with Brian Cathcart's ''Fly in the Cathedral,'' they even get their own ''Double Helix,'' sort of.

In that unlikely 1968 best seller, James Watson created a new kind of popular science book, one that unveils the human side of science -- the ambition, pride, ill will and possible thievery that, arguably, play as great a role in revolutionary breakthroughs as objective evaluations of empirical evidence do. Ambition, pride, ill will and possible thievery might well have played a 10role at Cambridge in 1932 -- 21 years before Watson and Francis Crick walked into the Eagle pub there one lunchtime and famously crowed that they'd just discovered the secret of life -- but you wouldn't know it from the historical record. Back in the early 1930's, young university researchers in Britain were still taking direction from the last vestiges of what Cathcart calls ''the age of the gentleman scientist,'' from pillars of probity who manned their workbenches with a seemingly thorough disregard for the outside world -- the scientific equivalent of a stiff upper lip.

For Walton and Cockcroft, that pillar was Sir Ernest Rutherford. At a time when physicists had begun to challenge the prevailing model of the atom as a kind of permeable pudding filled with plum like electrons, it was Rutherford who arrived at an alternate model, one consisting almost entirely of empty space. The outermost electrons, Rutherford proposed, would define the farthest 20boundary of this near void, while a nucleus, dense enough to deflect a few incoming particles yet compact enough so that the vast majority would miss, would reside at the center like ''a gnat in the Albert Hall,'' in Rutherford's words. Or, in a popular analogy of the day, like a fly in a cathedral. In 1929 Rutherford, by then the director of the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, assigned Walton and Cockcroft the task of catching that fly and splitting it.

They weren't alone. Several competitors in the States were also trying to swat the nucleus, a pursuit that inaugurated not only a new theoretical era of nuclear physics, but a new technological era of ''big physics.'' The kind of equipment Walton, Cockcroft and their contemporaries had to improvise would never again fit on one gentleman's workbench. Today some particle accelerators are so vast, Cathcart writes, they ''may be seen from space.''

30Cathcart devotes much of the book to the inner workings of lab machinery, and for good reason. His two central characters were hardly colorful. Cockcroft was ''an exceptionally good listener,'' but said so little that his children had a rule ''that Daddy could not leave the dinner table until he had uttered two whole sentences,'' Cathcart reports. And while the British author C. P. Snow recounted how Cockcroft took to the streets of Cambridge announcing, ''We've split the atom. We've split the atom,'' on the day of the crucial breakthrough, the anecdote is almost certainly apocryphal. The two scientists had sworn to tell no one the secret on which their professional lives now depended. Moreover, as Snow himself noted, Cockcroft led ''a singularly modest and self-effacing life.''

The same may be said of Walton. After reuniting with a sweetheart from his Belfast school days, 40he addressed his courtship letters to his future wife ''Dear Miss Wilson'' and signed them ''Ernest Walton.''

When Walton and Cockcroft began their collaboration in 1929, they hardly knew each other, and when they split the nucleus of an atom three years later, that still seemed to be the case. Given their limitations as heroes, it's not surprising that Cathcart would devote six pages to the design of the rectifier, a dizzyingly complex piece of scientific equipment, and only one brisk paragraph to the death of Cockcroft's ''beautiful and much adored'' 2-year-old son.

Cathcart, a former reporter for Reuters and The Independent of London, may lack a formal background in physics, but he has a talent for making the scientific process accessible to non-specialists. When he focuses on the pursuit rather than the pursuers, he captures the considerable 50suspense and exhilaration among physicists of the 20's and 30's solving some of the fundamental questions about the workings of the universe. ''The gods on Olympus did not have a better time,'' he writes. It's unfortunate that Walton and Cockcroft were apparently constitutionally incapable of joining the fun.

But in the end, they got the credit. Einstein himself said that E = mc2 was demonstrated experimentally by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932. In 1951 they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. And thanks to Cathcart's meticulous reconstruction of their finest hour, they're now enjoying a further moment of glory. As characters, however, Walton and Cockcroft were no Watson and Crick.

They were, for better or worse, gentlemen.

The following are the variations of the policies followed under the feminist movement except ______________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman, in fact, has a complicated, even schizophrenic, heritage. She’s been portrayed by such diverse actors as the perky Cathy Lee Crosby and Lynda Carter, who endowed her with both a competent, working woman aura and a dose of eroticism (Lynda Carter, I discovered, is the subject of a lot of Wonder Woman fetishist erotica on the Internet these days). An Internet poll about who should play Wonder Woman, if the series were revived today, uncovered equally diverse ideas— people suggested Cher, Lucy Lawless, Angela Bassett, and Demi Moore. Clearly, in our cultural imagination, Wonder Woman is a character with many faces.

Things only get more complicated when you consider the frame narrative that explains 10 Wonder Woman’s existence. She was born as Princess Diana (interestingly paralleling another icon of womanhood) in an Amazon community that seems pretty clearly grounded in lesbianism. Although the women in this harmonious and idyllic Amazon community have gone to great lengths to hide and protect their island from incursions by men, they are nonetheless delighted when a male American army officer inadvertently crash-lands in their utopia. So smitten with him are they, in fact, that they stage a ruthless physical competition to decide who will get to pair off with him. When Diana (later Wonder Woman) wins, she happily abandons her position as a royal ruler of the Amazons to accompany him back to the United States and take a boring desk job as a lowly secretary in the army. She even trades in her cool Amazon garb for a pair of glasses 20and a meek, submissive manner.

Of course, these good-girl accoutrements can’t hold Wonder Woman’s Amazon nature in check. Faced with evil or danger, she spins herself into a wild tornado and emerges in her glamorous (though seemingly impractical) star-spangled swimsuit and kinky, high-heeled go-go boots. She skillfully pilots an invisible airplane, wields a golden lasso, and fends off bullets with her wristbands made of a mysterious metal called “feminum.” In the name of the “forces of justice and freedom,” Wonder Woman will scrap with just about anyone— originally created to fight Nazis, she actually goes on to replicate their white-supremacist doctrines, killing off Japanese people whom her comic book portrays as demonic, and fighting to the death against her African double, Nubia. In a recent comic 30book, she completely abandons the apparently socialist tenets of the Amazons and emerges as a champion of capitalist entrepreneurialism, saving a trendy, financially lucrative urban bistro from the machinations of a computer geek. To quote the superhero herself, “Great Hera!” —can’t she get her politics straight?

Of course, all of these contradictions within Wonder Woman point to the evolution of and contradictions within our social constructions of womanhood. One of the founding principles of feminist criticism is the need to be conscious of the ways that gender is a constructed category, to realize that there is nothing inherent or essential about what we associate with the feminine. As first-wave feminist Simone de Beauvoir put it, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman; . . . it is civilization as a whole that produces this 40creature which is described as feminine.” But beyond this foundational acknowledgement of social construction (and even this concept is debated within feminism) and a general concern with the effects of power, there is little that binds what we call “feminist criticism” into a homogeneous, or even very coherent, doctrine. There are Marxist feminists who are concerned with the way economic oppression coincides with gender; linguistically based feminists who are interested in uncovering how the very structure of language itself betrays a masculine bias and in finding new modes of expression to better accommodate women. There are feminists who look for evidence of subversive resistance and empowerment in the history of women and feminists who are interested in tracing oppression and victimization.

50Feminist criticism is expanding into a more general level to include such areas as the construction of masculinity and the constitution of sexual orientation. It is being infused with insights from the realm of Queer Theory complicated by post-colonial scholars and scholars of race who consider the ways gender intersects with nationalism, class, and race. As feminist critic Theresa de Lauretis suggests, “A new conception of the subject is, in fact, emerging from feminist analyses of women’s heterogeneous subjectivity and multiple identities . . . the differences among women may be better understood as differences within women.” It is important to realize that not only does feminism as a movement exist in the face of these contradictions and complications—within feminist criticism, within gender studies, within individual literary texts and within our 60understanding of the individual woman as a subject—but that it cannot exist without them. Perhaps, like Wonder Woman, feminist criticism remains vital because it is astonishingly diverse, open, and rigorously self-problematizing.

The main purpose of the passage is ___________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman, in fact, has a complicated, even schizophrenic, heritage. She’s been portrayed by such diverse actors as the perky Cathy Lee Crosby and Lynda Carter, who endowed her with both a competent, working woman aura and a dose of eroticism (Lynda Carter, I discovered, is the subject of a lot of Wonder Woman fetishist erotica on the Internet these days). An Internet poll about who should play Wonder Woman, if the series were revived today, uncovered equally diverse ideas— people suggested Cher, Lucy Lawless, Angela Bassett, and Demi Moore. Clearly, in our cultural imagination, Wonder Woman is a character with many faces.

Things only get more complicated when you consider the frame narrative that explains 10 Wonder Woman’s existence. She was born as Princess Diana (interestingly paralleling another icon of womanhood) in an Amazon community that seems pretty clearly grounded in lesbianism. Although the women in this harmonious and idyllic Amazon community have gone to great lengths to hide and protect their island from incursions by men, they are nonetheless delighted when a male American army officer inadvertently crash-lands in their utopia. So smitten with him are they, in fact, that they stage a ruthless physical competition to decide who will get to pair off with him. When Diana (later Wonder Woman) wins, she happily abandons her position as a royal ruler of the Amazons to accompany him back to the United States and take a boring desk job as a lowly secretary in the army. She even trades in her cool Amazon garb for a pair of glasses 20and a meek, submissive manner.

Of course, these good-girl accoutrements can’t hold Wonder Woman’s Amazon nature in check. Faced with evil or danger, she spins herself into a wild tornado and emerges in her glamorous (though seemingly impractical) star-spangled swimsuit and kinky, high-heeled go-go boots. She skillfully pilots an invisible airplane, wields a golden lasso, and fends off bullets with her wristbands made of a mysterious metal called “feminum.” In the name of the “forces of justice and freedom,” Wonder Woman will scrap with just about anyone— originally created to fight Nazis, she actually goes on to replicate their white-supremacist doctrines, killing off Japanese people whom her comic book portrays as demonic, and fighting to the death against her African double, Nubia. In a recent comic 30book, she completely abandons the apparently socialist tenets of the Amazons and emerges as a champion of capitalist entrepreneurialism, saving a trendy, financially lucrative urban bistro from the machinations of a computer geek. To quote the superhero herself, “Great Hera!” —can’t she get her politics straight?

Of course, all of these contradictions within Wonder Woman point to the evolution of and contradictions within our social constructions of womanhood. One of the founding principles of feminist criticism is the need to be conscious of the ways that gender is a constructed category, to realize that there is nothing inherent or essential about what we associate with the feminine. As first-wave feminist Simone de Beauvoir put it, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman; . . . it is civilization as a whole that produces this 40creature which is described as feminine.” But beyond this foundational acknowledgement of social construction (and even this concept is debated within feminism) and a general concern with the effects of power, there is little that binds what we call “feminist criticism” into a homogeneous, or even very coherent, doctrine. There are Marxist feminists who are concerned with the way economic oppression coincides with gender; linguistically based feminists who are interested in uncovering how the very structure of language itself betrays a masculine bias and in finding new modes of expression to better accommodate women. There are feminists who look for evidence of subversive resistance and empowerment in the history of women and feminists who are interested in tracing oppression and victimization.

50Feminist criticism is expanding into a more general level to include such areas as the construction of masculinity and the constitution of sexual orientation. It is being infused with insights from the realm of Queer Theory complicated by post-colonial scholars and scholars of race who consider the ways gender intersects with nationalism, class, and race. As feminist critic Theresa de Lauretis suggests, “A new conception of the subject is, in fact, emerging from feminist analyses of women’s heterogeneous subjectivity and multiple identities . . . the differences among women may be better understood as differences within women.” It is important to realize that not only does feminism as a movement exist in the face of these contradictions and complications—within feminist criticism, within gender studies, within individual literary texts and within our 60understanding of the individual woman as a subject—but that it cannot exist without them. Perhaps, like Wonder Woman, feminist criticism remains vital because it is astonishingly diverse, open, and rigorously self-problematizing.

Which of the following statements is/are true according to the passage? I. The atom was split before the double helix of the DNA was discovered. II. Walton and Cockcroft successfully worked on other scientific concepts other than that given in the passage. III. But for Rutherford's contribution, both the scientists would have been able to make the most enduring contribution of their lives.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Walton and Cockcroft: the names don't carry quite the same historic resonance as Watson and Crick. Yet the most enduring work of Ernest Walton and John Cockcroft -- splitting the nucleus of the atom -- can hold its own with the discovery of DNA's structure among the turning points of 20th-century science, and now, with Brian Cathcart's ''Fly in the Cathedral,'' they even get their own ''Double Helix,'' sort of.

In that unlikely 1968 best seller, James Watson created a new kind of popular science book, one that unveils the human side of science -- the ambition, pride, ill will and possible thievery that, arguably, play as great a role in revolutionary breakthroughs as objective evaluations of empirical evidence do. Ambition, pride, ill will and possible thievery might well have played a 10role at Cambridge in 1932 -- 21 years before Watson and Francis Crick walked into the Eagle pub there one lunchtime and famously crowed that they'd just discovered the secret of life -- but you wouldn't know it from the historical record. Back in the early 1930's, young university researchers in Britain were still taking direction from the last vestiges of what Cathcart calls ''the age of the gentleman scientist,'' from pillars of probity who manned their workbenches with a seemingly thorough disregard for the outside world -- the scientific equivalent of a stiff upper lip.

For Walton and Cockcroft, that pillar was Sir Ernest Rutherford. At a time when physicists had begun to challenge the prevailing model of the atom as a kind of permeable pudding filled with plum like electrons, it was Rutherford who arrived at an alternate model, one consisting almost entirely of empty space. The outermost electrons, Rutherford proposed, would define the farthest 20boundary of this near void, while a nucleus, dense enough to deflect a few incoming particles yet compact enough so that the vast majority would miss, would reside at the center like ''a gnat in the Albert Hall,'' in Rutherford's words. Or, in a popular analogy of the day, like a fly in a cathedral. In 1929 Rutherford, by then the director of the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, assigned Walton and Cockcroft the task of catching that fly and splitting it.

They weren't alone. Several competitors in the States were also trying to swat the nucleus, a pursuit that inaugurated not only a new theoretical era of nuclear physics, but a new technological era of ''big physics.'' The kind of equipment Walton, Cockcroft and their contemporaries had to improvise would never again fit on one gentleman's workbench. Today some particle accelerators are so vast, Cathcart writes, they ''may be seen from space.''

30Cathcart devotes much of the book to the inner workings of lab machinery, and for good reason. His two central characters were hardly colorful. Cockcroft was ''an exceptionally good listener,'' but said so little that his children had a rule ''that Daddy could not leave the dinner table until he had uttered two whole sentences,'' Cathcart reports. And while the British author C. P. Snow recounted how Cockcroft took to the streets of Cambridge announcing, ''We've split the atom. We've split the atom,'' on the day of the crucial breakthrough, the anecdote is almost certainly apocryphal. The two scientists had sworn to tell no one the secret on which their professional lives now depended. Moreover, as Snow himself noted, Cockcroft led ''a singularly modest and self-effacing life.''

The same may be said of Walton. After reuniting with a sweetheart from his Belfast school days, 40he addressed his courtship letters to his future wife ''Dear Miss Wilson'' and signed them ''Ernest Walton.''

When Walton and Cockcroft began their collaboration in 1929, they hardly knew each other, and when they split the nucleus of an atom three years later, that still seemed to be the case. Given their limitations as heroes, it's not surprising that Cathcart would devote six pages to the design of the rectifier, a dizzyingly complex piece of scientific equipment, and only one brisk paragraph to the death of Cockcroft's ''beautiful and much adored'' 2-year-old son.

Cathcart, a former reporter for Reuters and The Independent of London, may lack a formal background in physics, but he has a talent for making the scientific process accessible to non-specialists. When he focuses on the pursuit rather than the pursuers, he captures the considerable 50suspense and exhilaration among physicists of the 20's and 30's solving some of the fundamental questions about the workings of the universe. ''The gods on Olympus did not have a better time,'' he writes. It's unfortunate that Walton and Cockcroft were apparently constitutionally incapable of joining the fun.

But in the end, they got the credit. Einstein himself said that E = mc2 was demonstrated experimentally by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932. In 1951 they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. And thanks to Cathcart's meticulous reconstruction of their finest hour, they're now enjoying a further moment of glory. As characters, however, Walton and Cockcroft were no Watson and Crick.

They were, for better or worse, gentlemen.

Which of the following statements can be best inferred from the lines “A new conception of the subject........as differences within women”?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman, in fact, has a complicated, even schizophrenic, heritage. She’s been portrayed by such diverse actors as the perky Cathy Lee Crosby and Lynda Carter, who endowed her with both a competent, working woman aura and a dose of eroticism (Lynda Carter, I discovered, is the subject of a lot of Wonder Woman fetishist erotica on the Internet these days). An Internet poll about who should play Wonder Woman, if the series were revived today, uncovered equally diverse ideas— people suggested Cher, Lucy Lawless, Angela Bassett, and Demi Moore. Clearly, in our cultural imagination, Wonder Woman is a character with many faces.

Things only get more complicated when you consider the frame narrative that explains 10 Wonder Woman’s existence. She was born as Princess Diana (interestingly paralleling another icon of womanhood) in an Amazon community that seems pretty clearly grounded in lesbianism. Although the women in this harmonious and idyllic Amazon community have gone to great lengths to hide and protect their island from incursions by men, they are nonetheless delighted when a male American army officer inadvertently crash-lands in their utopia. So smitten with him are they, in fact, that they stage a ruthless physical competition to decide who will get to pair off with him. When Diana (later Wonder Woman) wins, she happily abandons her position as a royal ruler of the Amazons to accompany him back to the United States and take a boring desk job as a lowly secretary in the army. She even trades in her cool Amazon garb for a pair of glasses 20and a meek, submissive manner.

Of course, these good-girl accoutrements can’t hold Wonder Woman’s Amazon nature in check. Faced with evil or danger, she spins herself into a wild tornado and emerges in her glamorous (though seemingly impractical) star-spangled swimsuit and kinky, high-heeled go-go boots. She skillfully pilots an invisible airplane, wields a golden lasso, and fends off bullets with her wristbands made of a mysterious metal called “feminum.” In the name of the “forces of justice and freedom,” Wonder Woman will scrap with just about anyone— originally created to fight Nazis, she actually goes on to replicate their white-supremacist doctrines, killing off Japanese people whom her comic book portrays as demonic, and fighting to the death against her African double, Nubia. In a recent comic 30book, she completely abandons the apparently socialist tenets of the Amazons and emerges as a champion of capitalist entrepreneurialism, saving a trendy, financially lucrative urban bistro from the machinations of a computer geek. To quote the superhero herself, “Great Hera!” —can’t she get her politics straight?

Of course, all of these contradictions within Wonder Woman point to the evolution of and contradictions within our social constructions of womanhood. One of the founding principles of feminist criticism is the need to be conscious of the ways that gender is a constructed category, to realize that there is nothing inherent or essential about what we associate with the feminine. As first-wave feminist Simone de Beauvoir put it, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman; . . . it is civilization as a whole that produces this 40creature which is described as feminine.” But beyond this foundational acknowledgement of social construction (and even this concept is debated within feminism) and a general concern with the effects of power, there is little that binds what we call “feminist criticism” into a homogeneous, or even very coherent, doctrine. There are Marxist feminists who are concerned with the way economic oppression coincides with gender; linguistically based feminists who are interested in uncovering how the very structure of language itself betrays a masculine bias and in finding new modes of expression to better accommodate women. There are feminists who look for evidence of subversive resistance and empowerment in the history of women and feminists who are interested in tracing oppression and victimization.

50Feminist criticism is expanding into a more general level to include such areas as the construction of masculinity and the constitution of sexual orientation. It is being infused with insights from the realm of Queer Theory complicated by post-colonial scholars and scholars of race who consider the ways gender intersects with nationalism, class, and race. As feminist critic Theresa de Lauretis suggests, “A new conception of the subject is, in fact, emerging from feminist analyses of women’s heterogeneous subjectivity and multiple identities . . . the differences among women may be better understood as differences within women.” It is important to realize that not only does feminism as a movement exist in the face of these contradictions and complications—within feminist criticism, within gender studies, within individual literary texts and within our 60understanding of the individual woman as a subject—but that it cannot exist without them. Perhaps, like Wonder Woman, feminist criticism remains vital because it is astonishingly diverse, open, and rigorously self-problematizing.

What term can be given to a customary predilection?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Women's lack of progress in academe is well documented: in its 1999-2000 report, the AAUP's Committee on the Economic Status of the Profession found "sinking evidence of a distorted gender distribution by rank." Women are more likely than men to end up in low-paid, non-tenure-track positions that are often a dead end. Women who do manage to secure tenure-track jobs are less likely than men to be at four-year colleges; those at four-year institutions are less likely to be at highly ranked research universities. Why?

Part of the problem is gender bias, of two different types. The more familiar is the "glass ceiling" that prevents successful women from reaching the summit of their professions. What exactly is the glass ceiling? Usually, it is defined demographically by documenting the dearth of women at the top. That is why there is a dearth of women, when most academics-men as well as women-see themselves as committed to gender equality. Little information exists to help academic administrators who are determined to give women a fair shake.

In addition, many women never get near the glass ceiling because of the "maternal wall," a type of gender bias I described in a 2004 article in Employee Rights and Employment Policy Law Review. Like the glass ceiling, the maternal wall is documented demographically by showing the dearth of mothers in desirable faculty jobs. Women who have children soon after receiving their PhDs are much less likely to achieve tenure than men who have children at the same point in their careers. About 45 percent of tenured women are childless, according to University of California, Berkeley, Dean Mary Ann Mason, whose article with UC Berkeley researcher Marc Goulden appears elsewhere in this issue. The high percentage of women without children may well be linked to "bias avoidance": the attempt to avoid the maternal wall by deferring or avoiding having children, as documented in economist Robert Drago's important work.

Again, demographic documentation of the maternal wall gives well-meaning administrators little guidance on how it arises. Depressing demography does not give much guidance on how to avoid more depressing demography in the future. This article does. It describes, in lay terms, the patterns of stereotyping and gender bias that create the glass ceiling and the maternal wall. Drawing on a review of over one hundred studies, it presents the latest findings of empirical social psychology in readily usable form.

The "commonsense" view of stereotyping is of an employer who misuses demography by assuming, for example, that because mothers as a group cut back their hours after they have kids, a particular woman will do so. Economists call this thinking "statistical discrimination"; social psychologists call it "descriptive stereotyping." When an employer disadvantages women by assuming they will conform to a stereotype, "cognitive bias" is often involved. The term refers to the insight that much bias-based on gender, race, and other social categories-stems from the ways in which stereotypes shape perception, memory, and inferences.

Another kind of stereotyping, described by business school professor Diana Burgess and social psychologist Eugene Dorgida is "prescriptive stereotyping." Such stereotyping doesn't just assume stereotypical behavior; it tries to require it. In one case, Bailey v. Scott-Gallaher, Inc., an employer fired an employee who sought to return from maternity leave on the grounds that mothers should stay at home until their children are grown.

Stereotypes often produce relatively small differences, but they add up over time. According to social psychologist Virginia Valian, "Success is largely the accumulation of advantage, exploiting small gains to get bigger ones." One experiment by Valian set up a model that built in a tiny bin in favor of promoting men; after a while, 65 percent of top-level employees were male. Conversely, the "accumulation of disadvantage" for women creates very real job detriments.

The glass ceiling is composed of two different patterns. One makes it harder for women to be perceived as competent. Women's successful performance tends to be more closely scrutinized, and assessed by stricter standards than men's. Men also have to give more convincing demonstrations of incompetence to be judged incompetent overall, according to social psychologist Martha Foschi.

Women's struggle to establish competence is exacerbated both by the exercise of discretion and in the way that supposedly objective rules are applied. Studies by Marilyn Brewer have shown that when applying objective rules, men tend to create exceptions for men or to give them "the benefit of the doubt," a pattern called "leniency bias." To quote Brewer, "Coldly objective judgment seems to be reserved for members of out groups." For example, a search committee may require "all candidates" to have their dissertations completed, only to waive this requirement for a young man who comes with the "right recommendations" and "shows great promise." Indeed, social psychologists have documented that men tend to be judged on whether they show promise, whereas women in similar circumstances are often judged strictly on what they have actually accomplished.

Kay Deaux and Kim Emswiller have also shown that people tend to attribute their own behavior, or that of their in group, to stable causes, while they attribute the behavior of out groups to situational causes: he's brilliant, but she just got lucky. This tendency is called "attribution bias."

In addition, facts that fit a given stereotype are more accurately recalled than facts that do not, a pattern called "recall bias." Members of an in group are more likely to recall undesirable behavior committed by members of an out group than by in-group members. As a result, women professionals may have to try harder than men to be perceived as competent because their mistakes are remembered long after men's are forgotten.

What makes 'Wonder Woman' relevant?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman, in fact, has a complicated, even schizophrenic, heritage. She’s been portrayed by such diverse actors as the perky Cathy Lee Crosby and Lynda Carter, who endowed her with both a competent, working woman aura and a dose of eroticism (Lynda Carter, I discovered, is the subject of a lot of Wonder Woman fetishist erotica on the Internet these days). An Internet poll about who should play Wonder Woman, if the series were revived today, uncovered equally diverse ideas— people suggested Cher, Lucy Lawless, Angela Bassett, and Demi Moore. Clearly, in our cultural imagination, Wonder Woman is a character with many faces.

Things only get more complicated when you consider the frame narrative that explains 10 Wonder Woman’s existence. She was born as Princess Diana (interestingly paralleling another icon of womanhood) in an Amazon community that seems pretty clearly grounded in lesbianism. Although the women in this harmonious and idyllic Amazon community have gone to great lengths to hide and protect their island from incursions by men, they are nonetheless delighted when a male American army officer inadvertently crash-lands in their utopia. So smitten with him are they, in fact, that they stage a ruthless physical competition to decide who will get to pair off with him. When Diana (later Wonder Woman) wins, she happily abandons her position as a royal ruler of the Amazons to accompany him back to the United States and take a boring desk job as a lowly secretary in the army. She even trades in her cool Amazon garb for a pair of glasses 20and a meek, submissive manner.

Of course, these good-girl accoutrements can’t hold Wonder Woman’s Amazon nature in check. Faced with evil or danger, she spins herself into a wild tornado and emerges in her glamorous (though seemingly impractical) star-spangled swimsuit and kinky, high-heeled go-go boots. She skillfully pilots an invisible airplane, wields a golden lasso, and fends off bullets with her wristbands made of a mysterious metal called “feminum.” In the name of the “forces of justice and freedom,” Wonder Woman will scrap with just about anyone— originally created to fight Nazis, she actually goes on to replicate their white-supremacist doctrines, killing off Japanese people whom her comic book portrays as demonic, and fighting to the death against her African double, Nubia. In a recent comic 30book, she completely abandons the apparently socialist tenets of the Amazons and emerges as a champion of capitalist entrepreneurialism, saving a trendy, financially lucrative urban bistro from the machinations of a computer geek. To quote the superhero herself, “Great Hera!” —can’t she get her politics straight?

Of course, all of these contradictions within Wonder Woman point to the evolution of and contradictions within our social constructions of womanhood. One of the founding principles of feminist criticism is the need to be conscious of the ways that gender is a constructed category, to realize that there is nothing inherent or essential about what we associate with the feminine. As first-wave feminist Simone de Beauvoir put it, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman; . . . it is civilization as a whole that produces this 40creature which is described as feminine.” But beyond this foundational acknowledgement of social construction (and even this concept is debated within feminism) and a general concern with the effects of power, there is little that binds what we call “feminist criticism” into a homogeneous, or even very coherent, doctrine. There are Marxist feminists who are concerned with the way economic oppression coincides with gender; linguistically based feminists who are interested in uncovering how the very structure of language itself betrays a masculine bias and in finding new modes of expression to better accommodate women. There are feminists who look for evidence of subversive resistance and empowerment in the history of women and feminists who are interested in tracing oppression and victimization.

50Feminist criticism is expanding into a more general level to include such areas as the construction of masculinity and the constitution of sexual orientation. It is being infused with insights from the realm of Queer Theory complicated by post-colonial scholars and scholars of race who consider the ways gender intersects with nationalism, class, and race. As feminist critic Theresa de Lauretis suggests, “A new conception of the subject is, in fact, emerging from feminist analyses of women’s heterogeneous subjectivity and multiple identities . . . the differences among women may be better understood as differences within women.” It is important to realize that not only does feminism as a movement exist in the face of these contradictions and complications—within feminist criticism, within gender studies, within individual literary texts and within our 60understanding of the individual woman as a subject—but that it cannot exist without them. Perhaps, like Wonder Woman, feminist criticism remains vital because it is astonishingly diverse, open, and rigorously self-problematizing.

The tone of the passage is _________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

When the curtain went up several months ago on a production of Stephen Sondheim's Pacific Overtures at the new home of East West Players in downtown Los Angeles, it marked another new chapter in the annals of this troupe, and, in a broader sense, the history of multicultural theater in the United States. East West Players is the oldest, and one of the most influential, Asian-American theater companies in the nation, with a three-decade-plus track record of affording Pacific Rim actors a place to practice their craft, hone their skills and gain insights into the business of acting.

The troupe's success is "preceded by that of its alumni," Jan Breslauer wrote in the Los Angeles Times recently about this "invaluable nurturing ground." Actors Pat Morita, John Lone and Sab Shimono -- all of whom are well known in the U.S. film and television industry -- are among those who have passed through the company's doors, along with playwrights David Henry Hwang (who has had four of his plays staged there) and Philip Kan Gotanda.

East West Players is now in residence in the 220-seat David Henry Hwang Theater in a former church, known today as the Union Center for the Arts, which also houses an art exhibitor and an independent film organization. Lead donors included Henry and Dorothy Hwang, parents of the playwright for whom the theater was named. Hwang, author of such Broadway dramas as M. Butterfly and Golden Child, is the most successful Asian-American playwright on the contemporary scene.

The company's first artistic director was Mako, a familiar face as a character actor in a skein of Hollywood films who later starred in the original Broadway production of Pacific Overtures, Sondheim's 1976 musical depiction of the opening of Japan by the West in the 1850s. Mako recalls that he and his colleagues weren't "consciously working to establish a model" when they began to stage plays. "What we were trying to do, consciously, was to be honest with ourselves, learning to cope with elements that were surrounding us, such as racism and discrimination."

Beulah Quo, another gifted Asian-American actress and an original East West player, recalls that in the beginning, "we were really the first group of Asian Americans working together in Los Angeles. That's common now. But in those days, people never thought of it."

With the passage of three decades, East West Players reflects the themes of U.S. society from the identity politics of the Sixties and Seventies to more mainstream issues of life and love. The company, which inspired the creation of other Asian-American companies in the Seventies in the aftermath of its own success, also typifies the multicultural theater scene in the United States. It represents its constituency in the same manner as Hispanic-American Theater in Los Angeles, New York City and elsewhere, and African-American theater in all parts of the country. And as with these other forms, Asian-American theater is flourishing.

"The audiences are larger," Hwang said recently in The Washington Post. "It's more accessible. It's more visible than we would have thought 20 years ago. It's exciting, the way you'd be excited about seeing any child grow up."

Tim Dang, the current artistic director, told The Daily Bruin, the University of California at Los Angeles newspaper, that he hopes the new site will evolve into an arts center rather than simply a theater. "I think that's one of our goals -- to have a cross- pollination of audiences, where hopefully the audiences that come to see the theater will come to the art exhibits as well, and if we have any film screenings, we will invite [patrons] to come see theater."

The passage leads to the inference of the following about East West theatre ________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

When the curtain went up several months ago on a production of Stephen Sondheim's Pacific Overtures at the new home of East West Players in downtown Los Angeles, it marked another new chapter in the annals of this troupe, and, in a broader sense, the history of multicultural theater in the United States. East West Players is the oldest, and one of the most influential, Asian-American theater companies in the nation, with a three-decade-plus track record of affording Pacific Rim actors a place to practice their craft, hone their skills and gain insights into the business of acting.

The troupe's success is "preceded by that of its alumni," Jan Breslauer wrote in the Los Angeles Times recently about this "invaluable nurturing ground." Actors Pat Morita, John Lone and Sab Shimono -- all of whom are well known in the U.S. film and television industry -- are among those who have passed through the company's doors, along with playwrights David Henry Hwang (who has had four of his plays staged there) and Philip Kan Gotanda.

East West Players is now in residence in the 220-seat David Henry Hwang Theater in a former church, known today as the Union Center for the Arts, which also houses an art exhibitor and an independent film organization. Lead donors included Henry and Dorothy Hwang, parents of the playwright for whom the theater was named. Hwang, author of such Broadway dramas as M. Butterfly and Golden Child, is the most successful Asian-American playwright on the contemporary scene.

The company's first artistic director was Mako, a familiar face as a character actor in a skein of Hollywood films who later starred in the original Broadway production of Pacific Overtures, Sondheim's 1976 musical depiction of the opening of Japan by the West in the 1850s. Mako recalls that he and his colleagues weren't "consciously working to establish a model" when they began to stage plays. "What we were trying to do, consciously, was to be honest with ourselves, learning to cope with elements that were surrounding us, such as racism and discrimination."

Beulah Quo, another gifted Asian-American actress and an original East West player, recalls that in the beginning, "we were really the first group of Asian Americans working together in Los Angeles. That's common now. But in those days, people never thought of it."

With the passage of three decades, East West Players reflects the themes of U.S. society from the identity politics of the Sixties and Seventies to more mainstream issues of life and love. The company, which inspired the creation of other Asian-American companies in the Seventies in the aftermath of its own success, also typifies the multicultural theater scene in the United States. It represents its constituency in the same manner as Hispanic-American Theater in Los Angeles, New York City and elsewhere, and African-American theater in all parts of the country. And as with these other forms, Asian-American theater is flourishing.

"The audiences are larger," Hwang said recently in The Washington Post. "It's more accessible. It's more visible than we would have thought 20 years ago. It's exciting, the way you'd be excited about seeing any child grow up."

Tim Dang, the current artistic director, told The Daily Bruin, the University of California at Los Angeles newspaper, that he hopes the new site will evolve into an arts center rather than simply a theater. "I think that's one of our goals -- to have a cross- pollination of audiences, where hopefully the audiences that come to see the theater will come to the art exhibits as well, and if we have any film screenings, we will invite [patrons] to come see theater."

The author used the term cross-pollination, he implies ________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

When the curtain went up several months ago on a production of Stephen Sondheim's Pacific Overtures at the new home of East West Players in downtown Los Angeles, it marked another new chapter in the annals of this troupe, and, in a broader sense, the history of multicultural theater in the United States. East West Players is the oldest, and one of the most influential, Asian-American theater companies in the nation, with a three-decade-plus track record of affording Pacific Rim actors a place to practice their craft, hone their skills and gain insights into the business of acting.

The troupe's success is "preceded by that of its alumni," Jan Breslauer wrote in the Los Angeles Times recently about this "invaluable nurturing ground." Actors Pat Morita, John Lone and Sab Shimono -- all of whom are well known in the U.S. film and television industry -- are among those who have passed through the company's doors, along with playwrights David Henry Hwang (who has had four of his plays staged there) and Philip Kan Gotanda.

East West Players is now in residence in the 220-seat David Henry Hwang Theater in a former church, known today as the Union Center for the Arts, which also houses an art exhibitor and an independent film organization. Lead donors included Henry and Dorothy Hwang, parents of the playwright for whom the theater was named. Hwang, author of such Broadway dramas as M. Butterfly and Golden Child, is the most successful Asian-American playwright on the contemporary scene.

The company's first artistic director was Mako, a familiar face as a character actor in a skein of Hollywood films who later starred in the original Broadway production of Pacific Overtures, Sondheim's 1976 musical depiction of the opening of Japan by the West in the 1850s. Mako recalls that he and his colleagues weren't "consciously working to establish a model" when they began to stage plays. "What we were trying to do, consciously, was to be honest with ourselves, learning to cope with elements that were surrounding us, such as racism and discrimination."

Beulah Quo, another gifted Asian-American actress and an original East West player, recalls that in the beginning, "we were really the first group of Asian Americans working together in Los Angeles. That's common now. But in those days, people never thought of it."

With the passage of three decades, East West Players reflects the themes of U.S. society from the identity politics of the Sixties and Seventies to more mainstream issues of life and love. The company, which inspired the creation of other Asian-American companies in the Seventies in the aftermath of its own success, also typifies the multicultural theater scene in the United States. It represents its constituency in the same manner as Hispanic-American Theater in Los Angeles, New York City and elsewhere, and African-American theater in all parts of the country. And as with these other forms, Asian-American theater is flourishing.

"The audiences are larger," Hwang said recently in The Washington Post. "It's more accessible. It's more visible than we would have thought 20 years ago. It's exciting, the way you'd be excited about seeing any child grow up."

Tim Dang, the current artistic director, told The Daily Bruin, the University of California at Los Angeles newspaper, that he hopes the new site will evolve into an arts center rather than simply a theater. "I think that's one of our goals -- to have a cross- pollination of audiences, where hopefully the audiences that come to see the theater will come to the art exhibits as well, and if we have any film screenings, we will invite [patrons] to come see theater."

It cannot be inferred from the fourth paragraph that _______________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

When the curtain went up several months ago on a production of Stephen Sondheim's Pacific Overtures at the new home of East West Players in downtown Los Angeles, it marked another new chapter in the annals of this troupe, and, in a broader sense, the history of multicultural theater in the United States. East West Players is the oldest, and one of the most influential, Asian-American theater companies in the nation, with a three-decade-plus track record of affording Pacific Rim actors a place to practice their craft, hone their skills and gain insights into the business of acting.

The troupe's success is "preceded by that of its alumni," Jan Breslauer wrote in the Los Angeles Times recently about this "invaluable nurturing ground." Actors Pat Morita, John Lone and Sab Shimono -- all of whom are well known in the U.S. film and television industry -- are among those who have passed through the company's doors, along with playwrights David Henry Hwang (who has had four of his plays staged there) and Philip Kan Gotanda.

East West Players is now in residence in the 220-seat David Henry Hwang Theater in a former church, known today as the Union Center for the Arts, which also houses an art exhibitor and an independent film organization. Lead donors included Henry and Dorothy Hwang, parents of the playwright for whom the theater was named. Hwang, author of such Broadway dramas as M. Butterfly and Golden Child, is the most successful Asian-American playwright on the contemporary scene.

The company's first artistic director was Mako, a familiar face as a character actor in a skein of Hollywood films who later starred in the original Broadway production of Pacific Overtures, Sondheim's 1976 musical depiction of the opening of Japan by the West in the 1850s. Mako recalls that he and his colleagues weren't "consciously working to establish a model" when they began to stage plays. "What we were trying to do, consciously, was to be honest with ourselves, learning to cope with elements that were surrounding us, such as racism and discrimination."

Beulah Quo, another gifted Asian-American actress and an original East West player, recalls that in the beginning, "we were really the first group of Asian Americans working together in Los Angeles. That's common now. But in those days, people never thought of it."

With the passage of three decades, East West Players reflects the themes of U.S. society from the identity politics of the Sixties and Seventies to more mainstream issues of life and love. The company, which inspired the creation of other Asian-American companies in the Seventies in the aftermath of its own success, also typifies the multicultural theater scene in the United States. It represents its constituency in the same manner as Hispanic-American Theater in Los Angeles, New York City and elsewhere, and African-American theater in all parts of the country. And as with these other forms, Asian-American theater is flourishing.

"The audiences are larger," Hwang said recently in The Washington Post. "It's more accessible. It's more visible than we would have thought 20 years ago. It's exciting, the way you'd be excited about seeing any child grow up."

Tim Dang, the current artistic director, told The Daily Bruin, the University of California at Los Angeles newspaper, that he hopes the new site will evolve into an arts center rather than simply a theater. "I think that's one of our goals -- to have a cross- pollination of audiences, where hopefully the audiences that come to see the theater will come to the art exhibits as well, and if we have any film screenings, we will invite [patrons] to come see theater."

The tone of the passage is ______________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Women's lack of progress in academe is well documented: in its 1999-2000 report, the AAUP's Committee on the Economic Status of the Profession found "sinking evidence of a distorted gender distribution by rank." Women are more likely than men to end up in low-paid, non-tenure-track positions that are often a dead end. Women who do manage to secure tenure-track jobs are less likely than men to be at four-year colleges; those at four-year institutions are less likely to be at highly ranked research universities. Why?

Part of the problem is gender bias, of two different types. The more familiar is the "glass ceiling" that prevents successful women from reaching the summit of their professions. What exactly is the glass ceiling? Usually, it is defined demographically by documenting the dearth of women at the top. That is why there is a dearth of women, when most academics-men as well as women-see themselves as committed to gender equality. Little information exists to help academic administrators who are determined to give women a fair shake.

In addition, many women never get near the glass ceiling because of the "maternal wall," a type of gender bias I described in a 2004 article in Employee Rights and Employment Policy Law Review. Like the glass ceiling, the maternal wall is documented demographically by showing the dearth of mothers in desirable faculty jobs. Women who have children soon after receiving their PhDs are much less likely to achieve tenure than men who have children at the same point in their careers. About 45 percent of tenured women are childless, according to University of California, Berkeley, Dean Mary Ann Mason, whose article with UC Berkeley researcher Marc Goulden appears elsewhere in this issue. The high percentage of women without children may well be linked to "bias avoidance": the attempt to avoid the maternal wall by deferring or avoiding having children, as documented in economist Robert Drago's important work.

Again, demographic documentation of the maternal wall gives well-meaning administrators little guidance on how it arises. Depressing demography does not give much guidance on how to avoid more depressing demography in the future. This article does. It describes, in lay terms, the patterns of stereotyping and gender bias that create the glass ceiling and the maternal wall. Drawing on a review of over one hundred studies, it presents the latest findings of empirical social psychology in readily usable form.

The "commonsense" view of stereotyping is of an employer who misuses demography by assuming, for example, that because mothers as a group cut back their hours after they have kids, a particular woman will do so. Economists call this thinking "statistical discrimination"; social psychologists call it "descriptive stereotyping." When an employer disadvantages women by assuming they will conform to a stereotype, "cognitive bias" is often involved. The term refers to the insight that much bias-based on gender, race, and other social categories-stems from the ways in which stereotypes shape perception, memory, and inferences.

Another kind of stereotyping, described by business school professor Diana Burgess and social psychologist Eugene Dorgida is "prescriptive stereotyping." Such stereotyping doesn't just assume stereotypical behavior; it tries to require it. In one case, Bailey v. Scott-Gallaher, Inc., an employer fired an employee who sought to return from maternity leave on the grounds that mothers should stay at home until their children are grown.

Stereotypes often produce relatively small differences, but they add up over time. According to social psychologist Virginia Valian, "Success is largely the accumulation of advantage, exploiting small gains to get bigger ones." One experiment by Valian set up a model that built in a tiny bin in favor of promoting men; after a while, 65 percent of top-level employees were male. Conversely, the "accumulation of disadvantage" for women creates very real job detriments.

The glass ceiling is composed of two different patterns. One makes it harder for women to be perceived as competent. Women's successful performance tends to be more closely scrutinized, and assessed by stricter standards than men's. Men also have to give more convincing demonstrations of incompetence to be judged incompetent overall, according to social psychologist Martha Foschi.

Women's struggle to establish competence is exacerbated both by the exercise of discretion and in the way that supposedly objective rules are applied. Studies by Marilyn Brewer have shown that when applying objective rules, men tend to create exceptions for men or to give them "the benefit of the doubt," a pattern called "leniency bias." To quote Brewer, "Coldly objective judgment seems to be reserved for members of out groups." For example, a search committee may require "all candidates" to have their dissertations completed, only to waive this requirement for a young man who comes with the "right recommendations" and "shows great promise." Indeed, social psychologists have documented that men tend to be judged on whether they show promise, whereas women in similar circumstances are often judged strictly on what they have actually accomplished.

Kay Deaux and Kim Emswiller have also shown that people tend to attribute their own behavior, or that of their in group, to stable causes, while they attribute the behavior of out groups to situational causes: he's brilliant, but she just got lucky. This tendency is called "attribution bias."

In addition, facts that fit a given stereotype are more accurately recalled than facts that do not, a pattern called "recall bias." Members of an in group are more likely to recall undesirable behavior committed by members of an out group than by in-group members. As a result, women professionals may have to try harder than men to be perceived as competent because their mistakes are remembered long after men's are forgotten.

The tone of the passage is ________________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Walton and Cockcroft: the names don't carry quite the same historic resonance as Watson and Crick. Yet the most enduring work of Ernest Walton and John Cockcroft -- splitting the nucleus of the atom -- can hold its own with the discovery of DNA's structure among the turning points of 20th-century science, and now, with Brian Cathcart's ''Fly in the Cathedral,'' they even get their own ''Double Helix,'' sort of.

In that unlikely 1968 best seller, James Watson created a new kind of popular science book, one that unveils the human side of science -- the ambition, pride, ill will and possible thievery that, arguably, play as great a role in revolutionary breakthroughs as objective evaluations of empirical evidence do. Ambition, pride, ill will and possible thievery might well have played a 10role at Cambridge in 1932 -- 21 years before Watson and Francis Crick walked into the Eagle pub there one lunchtime and famously crowed that they'd just discovered the secret of life -- but you wouldn't know it from the historical record. Back in the early 1930's, young university researchers in Britain were still taking direction from the last vestiges of what Cathcart calls ''the age of the gentleman scientist,'' from pillars of probity who manned their workbenches with a seemingly thorough disregard for the outside world -- the scientific equivalent of a stiff upper lip.

For Walton and Cockcroft, that pillar was Sir Ernest Rutherford. At a time when physicists had begun to challenge the prevailing model of the atom as a kind of permeable pudding filled with plum like electrons, it was Rutherford who arrived at an alternate model, one consisting almost entirely of empty space. The outermost electrons, Rutherford proposed, would define the farthest 20boundary of this near void, while a nucleus, dense enough to deflect a few incoming particles yet compact enough so that the vast majority would miss, would reside at the center like ''a gnat in the Albert Hall,'' in Rutherford's words. Or, in a popular analogy of the day, like a fly in a cathedral. In 1929 Rutherford, by then the director of the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, assigned Walton and Cockcroft the task of catching that fly and splitting it.

They weren't alone. Several competitors in the States were also trying to swat the nucleus, a pursuit that inaugurated not only a new theoretical era of nuclear physics, but a new technological era of ''big physics.'' The kind of equipment Walton, Cockcroft and their contemporaries had to improvise would never again fit on one gentleman's workbench. Today some particle accelerators are so vast, Cathcart writes, they ''may be seen from space.''

30Cathcart devotes much of the book to the inner workings of lab machinery, and for good reason. His two central characters were hardly colorful. Cockcroft was ''an exceptionally good listener,'' but said so little that his children had a rule ''that Daddy could not leave the dinner table until he had uttered two whole sentences,'' Cathcart reports. And while the British author C. P. Snow recounted how Cockcroft took to the streets of Cambridge announcing, ''We've split the atom. We've split the atom,'' on the day of the crucial breakthrough, the anecdote is almost certainly apocryphal. The two scientists had sworn to tell no one the secret on which their professional lives now depended. Moreover, as Snow himself noted, Cockcroft led ''a singularly modest and self-effacing life.''

The same may be said of Walton. After reuniting with a sweetheart from his Belfast school days, 40he addressed his courtship letters to his future wife ''Dear Miss Wilson'' and signed them ''Ernest Walton.''

When Walton and Cockcroft began their collaboration in 1929, they hardly knew each other, and when they split the nucleus of an atom three years later, that still seemed to be the case. Given their limitations as heroes, it's not surprising that Cathcart would devote six pages to the design of the rectifier, a dizzyingly complex piece of scientific equipment, and only one brisk paragraph to the death of Cockcroft's ''beautiful and much adored'' 2-year-old son.

Cathcart, a former reporter for Reuters and The Independent of London, may lack a formal background in physics, but he has a talent for making the scientific process accessible to non-specialists. When he focuses on the pursuit rather than the pursuers, he captures the considerable 50suspense and exhilaration among physicists of the 20's and 30's solving some of the fundamental questions about the workings of the universe. ''The gods on Olympus did not have a better time,'' he writes. It's unfortunate that Walton and Cockcroft were apparently constitutionally incapable of joining the fun.

But in the end, they got the credit. Einstein himself said that E = mc2 was demonstrated experimentally by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932. In 1951 they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. And thanks to Cathcart's meticulous reconstruction of their finest hour, they're now enjoying a further moment of glory. As characters, however, Walton and Cockcroft were no Watson and Crick.

They were, for better or worse, gentlemen.

A faulty reconstruction of ideations can also be called _______________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Women's lack of progress in academe is well documented: in its 1999-2000 report, the AAUP's Committee on the Economic Status of the Profession found "sinking evidence of a distorted gender distribution by rank." Women are more likely than men to end up in low-paid, non-tenure-track positions that are often a dead end. Women who do manage to secure tenure-track jobs are less likely than men to be at four-year colleges; those at four-year institutions are less likely to be at highly ranked research universities. Why?

Part of the problem is gender bias, of two different types. The more familiar is the "glass ceiling" that prevents successful women from reaching the summit of their professions. What exactly is the glass ceiling? Usually, it is defined demographically by documenting the dearth of women at the top. That is why there is a dearth of women, when most academics-men as well as women-see themselves as committed to gender equality. Little information exists to help academic administrators who are determined to give women a fair shake.

In addition, many women never get near the glass ceiling because of the "maternal wall," a type of gender bias I described in a 2004 article in Employee Rights and Employment Policy Law Review. Like the glass ceiling, the maternal wall is documented demographically by showing the dearth of mothers in desirable faculty jobs. Women who have children soon after receiving their PhDs are much less likely to achieve tenure than men who have children at the same point in their careers. About 45 percent of tenured women are childless, according to University of California, Berkeley, Dean Mary Ann Mason, whose article with UC Berkeley researcher Marc Goulden appears elsewhere in this issue. The high percentage of women without children may well be linked to "bias avoidance": the attempt to avoid the maternal wall by deferring or avoiding having children, as documented in economist Robert Drago's important work.

Again, demographic documentation of the maternal wall gives well-meaning administrators little guidance on how it arises. Depressing demography does not give much guidance on how to avoid more depressing demography in the future. This article does. It describes, in lay terms, the patterns of stereotyping and gender bias that create the glass ceiling and the maternal wall. Drawing on a review of over one hundred studies, it presents the latest findings of empirical social psychology in readily usable form.

The "commonsense" view of stereotyping is of an employer who misuses demography by assuming, for example, that because mothers as a group cut back their hours after they have kids, a particular woman will do so. Economists call this thinking "statistical discrimination"; social psychologists call it "descriptive stereotyping." When an employer disadvantages women by assuming they will conform to a stereotype, "cognitive bias" is often involved. The term refers to the insight that much bias-based on gender, race, and other social categories-stems from the ways in which stereotypes shape perception, memory, and inferences.

Another kind of stereotyping, described by business school professor Diana Burgess and social psychologist Eugene Dorgida is "prescriptive stereotyping." Such stereotyping doesn't just assume stereotypical behavior; it tries to require it. In one case, Bailey v. Scott-Gallaher, Inc., an employer fired an employee who sought to return from maternity leave on the grounds that mothers should stay at home until their children are grown.

Stereotypes often produce relatively small differences, but they add up over time. According to social psychologist Virginia Valian, "Success is largely the accumulation of advantage, exploiting small gains to get bigger ones." One experiment by Valian set up a model that built in a tiny bin in favor of promoting men; after a while, 65 percent of top-level employees were male. Conversely, the "accumulation of disadvantage" for women creates very real job detriments.

The glass ceiling is composed of two different patterns. One makes it harder for women to be perceived as competent. Women's successful performance tends to be more closely scrutinized, and assessed by stricter standards than men's. Men also have to give more convincing demonstrations of incompetence to be judged incompetent overall, according to social psychologist Martha Foschi.

Women's struggle to establish competence is exacerbated both by the exercise of discretion and in the way that supposedly objective rules are applied. Studies by Marilyn Brewer have shown that when applying objective rules, men tend to create exceptions for men or to give them "the benefit of the doubt," a pattern called "leniency bias." To quote Brewer, "Coldly objective judgment seems to be reserved for members of out groups." For example, a search committee may require "all candidates" to have their dissertations completed, only to waive this requirement for a young man who comes with the "right recommendations" and "shows great promise." Indeed, social psychologists have documented that men tend to be judged on whether they show promise, whereas women in similar circumstances are often judged strictly on what they have actually accomplished.

Kay Deaux and Kim Emswiller have also shown that people tend to attribute their own behavior, or that of their in group, to stable causes, while they attribute the behavior of out groups to situational causes: he's brilliant, but she just got lucky. This tendency is called "attribution bias."

In addition, facts that fit a given stereotype are more accurately recalled than facts that do not, a pattern called "recall bias." Members of an in group are more likely to recall undesirable behavior committed by members of an out group than by in-group members. As a result, women professionals may have to try harder than men to be perceived as competent because their mistakes are remembered long after men's are forgotten.