1
2.

Direction: This question presents a sentence, part of which or all of which is underlined. Beneath the sentence, you will find four ways of phrasing the underlined part. The first of these repeats the original; the other three are different. If you think the original is best, choose the first answer; otherwise, choose one of the others.

 The administration discussed whether the number of students studying  European languages was likely to decline when the senior lecturer retired.


A) whether the number of students studying European languages was likely

B) whether the number of students studying European languages were likely

C) If the students studying European languages were likely.

D) if the number of European language students were likely



3.

Laws of nature are not commands but statements of acts. The use of the word "law"  in this context is rather unfortunate. It would be better to speak of uniformities in nature. This would do away with the elementary fallacy that a law implies a lawgiver. If a piece of matter does not obey a law of nature it is punished. On the contrary, we say that the law has been incorrectly started.

The laws of nature  based on observation are


A) conclusion about the nature of the universe

B) true and unfalsifiable

C) figments of the observer imagination

D) subject to change in the light of new facts



4.

Laws of nature are not commands but statements of acts. The use of the word "law"  in this context is rather unfortunate. It would be better to speak of uniformities in nature. This would do away with the elementary fallacy that a law implies a lawgiver. If a piece of matter does not obey a law of nature it is punished. On the contrary, we say that the law has been incorrectly started.

 

 Laws of nature differ from man-made laws because


A) the former state facts of Nature

B) they must be obeyed

C) they are natural

D) unlike human laws , they are systematic



5.

Laws of nature are not commands but statements of acts. The use of the word "law"  in this context is rather unfortunate. It would be better to speak of uniformities in nature. This would do away with the elementary fallacy that a law implies a lawgiver. If a piece of matter does not obey a law of nature it is punished. On the contrary, we say that the law has been incorrectly started.

  If a piece of matter violates nature's law, it is not punished because


A) It is not binding to obey it

B) there is no superior being to enforce the law of nature

C) it can not be punished

D) it simply means that the facts have not been correctly stated by law



1