Mirrorless Cars and Camera Technology
Before car designers envisioned fully autonomous vehicles, they explored alternatives to conventional side mirrors. Recently, several automakers have presented video-based systems that could replace side mirrors with small cameras. Continental, a leading automotive parts supplier, is among those pioneering this technology.
In a modified Audi A6, Continental demonstrated its system. Compact cameras mounted on the sides of the car replace traditional mirrors and transmit real-time images to screens inside the vehicle. These displays are positioned near the driver’s natural line of sight, providing a wider field of view than conventional mirrors and minimizing blind spots. The cameras can also adjust automatically to sunlight or nighttime conditions and help drivers maneuver in tight parking areas.
Automakers are awaiting regulatory approval, as many countries still require physical mirrors on vehicles. Philipp Hoffmann, BMW’s project manager for camera monitor systems, anticipates road tests of mirrorless vehicles in Europe, followed by trials in Asia. He expressed optimism that similar approval may be granted in the United States.
His optimism is supported by recent initiatives. Daimler AG, the parent company of Mercedes-Benz, is testing autonomous trucks in Nevada with screens replacing mirrors, and BMW has received an exemption from the U.S. Transportation Department to allow a BMW 7 Series to park itself using an automatic parking system while the driver remains outside the vehicle.
Replacing side mirrors with cameras could also reduce costs. Repairing a conventional side mirror can be expensive—for instance, a replacement for a 2016 Acura RLX costs nearly $950. Mr. McConnell from Continental noted that eliminating the need for structural supports for mirrors could save manufacturers money in production.
Which of the following best summarizes the main idea of the passage?

Social media algorithms, introduced by Facebook in 2009, have revolutionized how we interact online, yet they present challenges akin to unruly teenagers, amplifying harmful content and disinformation. Governments worldwide are trying to curb these excesses: Brazil temporarily banned X (formerly Twitter), the EU threatened tech firms with fines for election interference, the UK introduced an online safety act, and the US proposed a TikTok ban.

Critics argue these actions threaten free speech, reminiscent of John Perry Barlow’s 1996 essay urging governments to stay out of cyberspace. Free speech advocates like Adam Candeub, a former advisor to President Trump, fear government control but also criticize social media’s polarizing effect, exacerbated by algorithms. Candeub believes in a “marketplace of ideas where speech should compete freely, but others, like Yale lecturer Asha Rangappa, argue that algorithms distort this marketplace, giving preference to sensational content rather than fostering democratic debate.

Early social media functioned as a public sphere, but today, algorithms decide what users see, often amplifying controversial topics for engagement. This skews public discourse, misrepresenting majority opinions and exaggerating discord. Although platforms like Facebook claim they don’t block content, their algorithms shape what people see, making “free speech” more about reach than expression. Critics argue this severs the direct link between speakers and audiences, shifting control from individuals to algorithms.

In what is now called the “algorithmic society,” platforms and search engines wield influence aver speech, akin to how nation-states once governed it. Legal scholars argue that current free speech protections are insufficient, as social media platforms play an active role in shaping public discourse. Algorithm transparency is proposed as a solution, but there is no neutral way to design social media.

Efforts to mitigate algorithmic control, such as chronological feeds, have limitations. Yet platforms like X now offer users the option to curate their own content. Francis Fukuyama suggests “middleware” as a third solution, allowing users more control over what they see by using independent content filters.

As social media matures, control might shift from tech companies and politicians to users. A growing number of people now prefer closed, private group chats over public sharing, signaling a desire for more accountable, less sensationalized online spaces. The future of algorithms could lie with the people, not big tech.

Adapted from: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8e4p4297eo
What is the main idea of the passage?

Social media algorithms, introduced by Facebook in 2009, have revolutionized how we interact online, yet they present challenges akin to unruly teenagers, amplifying harmful content and disinformation. Governments worldwide are trying to curb these excesses: Brazil temporarily banned X (formerly Twitter), the EU threatened tech firms with fines for election interference, the UK introduced an online safety act, and the US proposed a TikTok ban.

Critics argue these actions threaten free speech, reminiscent of John Perry Barlow’s 1996 essay urging governments to stay out of cyberspace. Free speech advocates like Adam Candeub, a former advisor to President Trump, fear government control but also criticize social media’s polarizing effect, exacerbated by algorithms. Candeub believes in a “marketplace of ideas where speech should compete freely, but others, like Yale lecturer Asha Rangappa, argue that algorithms distort this marketplace, giving preference to sensational content rather than fostering democratic debate.

Early social media functioned as a public sphere, but today, algorithms decide what users see, often amplifying controversial topics for engagement. This skews public discourse, misrepresenting majority opinions and exaggerating discord. Although platforms like Facebook claim they don’t block content, their algorithms shape what people see, making “free speech” more about reach than expression. Critics argue this severs the direct link between speakers and audiences, shifting control from individuals to algorithms.

In what is now called the “algorithmic society,” platforms and search engines wield influence aver speech, akin to how nation-states once governed it. Legal scholars argue that current free speech protections are insufficient, as social media platforms play an active role in shaping public discourse. Algorithm transparency is proposed as a solution, but there is no neutral way to design social media.

Efforts to mitigate algorithmic control, such as chronological feeds, have limitations. Yet platforms like X now offer users the option to curate their own content. Francis Fukuyama suggests “middleware” as a third solution, allowing users more control over what they see by using independent content filters.

As social media matures, control might shift from tech companies and politicians to users. A growing number of people now prefer closed, private group chats over public sharing, signaling a desire for more accountable, less sensationalized online spaces. The future of algorithms could lie with the people, not big tech.

Adapted from: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8e4p4297eo
What is the main function of the second paragraph in relation to the first?

Social media algorithms, introduced by Facebook in 2009, have revolutionized how we interact online, yet they present challenges akin to unruly teenagers, amplifying harmful content and disinformation. Governments worldwide are trying to curb these excesses: Brazil temporarily banned X (formerly Twitter), the EU threatened tech firms with fines for election interference, the UK introduced an online safety act, and the US proposed a TikTok ban.

Critics argue these actions threaten free speech, reminiscent of John Perry Barlow’s 1996 essay urging governments to stay out of cyberspace. Free speech advocates like Adam Candeub, a former advisor to President Trump, fear government control but also criticize social media’s polarizing effect, exacerbated by algorithms. Candeub believes in a “marketplace of ideas where speech should compete freely, but others, like Yale lecturer Asha Rangappa, argue that algorithms distort this marketplace, giving preference to sensational content rather than fostering democratic debate.

Early social media functioned as a public sphere, but today, algorithms decide what users see, often amplifying controversial topics for engagement. This skews public discourse, misrepresenting majority opinions and exaggerating discord. Although platforms like Facebook claim they don’t block content, their algorithms shape what people see, making “free speech” more about reach than expression. Critics argue this severs the direct link between speakers and audiences, shifting control from individuals to algorithms.

In what is now called the “algorithmic society,” platforms and search engines wield influence aver speech, akin to how nation-states once governed it. Legal scholars argue that current free speech protections are insufficient, as social media platforms play an active role in shaping public discourse. Algorithm transparency is proposed as a solution, but there is no neutral way to design social media.

Efforts to mitigate algorithmic control, such as chronological feeds, have limitations. Yet platforms like X now offer users the option to curate their own content. Francis Fukuyama suggests “middleware” as a third solution, allowing users more control over what they see by using independent content filters.

As social media matures, control might shift from tech companies and politicians to users. A growing number of people now prefer closed, private group chats over public sharing, signaling a desire for more accountable, less sensationalized online spaces. The future of algorithms could lie with the people, not big tech.

Adapted from: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8e4p4297eo
Which of the following best describes the author’s attitude toward the topic?

Social media algorithms, introduced by Facebook in 2009, have revolutionized how we interact online, yet they present challenges akin to unruly teenagers, amplifying harmful content and disinformation. Governments worldwide are trying to curb these excesses: Brazil temporarily banned X (formerly Twitter), the EU threatened tech firms with fines for election interference, the UK introduced an online safety act, and the US proposed a TikTok ban.

Critics argue these actions threaten free speech, reminiscent of John Perry Barlow’s 1996 essay urging governments to stay out of cyberspace. Free speech advocates like Adam Candeub, a former advisor to President Trump, fear government control but also criticize social media’s polarizing effect, exacerbated by algorithms. Candeub believes in a “marketplace of ideas where speech should compete freely, but others, like Yale lecturer Asha Rangappa, argue that algorithms distort this marketplace, giving preference to sensational content rather than fostering democratic debate.

Early social media functioned as a public sphere, but today, algorithms decide what users see, often amplifying controversial topics for engagement. This skews public discourse, misrepresenting majority opinions and exaggerating discord. Although platforms like Facebook claim they don’t block content, their algorithms shape what people see, making “free speech” more about reach than expression. Critics argue this severs the direct link between speakers and audiences, shifting control from individuals to algorithms.

In what is now called the “algorithmic society,” platforms and search engines wield influence aver speech, akin to how nation-states once governed it. Legal scholars argue that current free speech protections are insufficient, as social media platforms play an active role in shaping public discourse. Algorithm transparency is proposed as a solution, but there is no neutral way to design social media.

Efforts to mitigate algorithmic control, such as chronological feeds, have limitations. Yet platforms like X now offer users the option to curate their own content. Francis Fukuyama suggests “middleware” as a third solution, allowing users more control over what they see by using independent content filters.

As social media matures, control might shift from tech companies and politicians to users. A growing number of people now prefer closed, private group chats over public sharing, signaling a desire for more accountable, less sensationalized online spaces. The future of algorithms could lie with the people, not big tech.

Adapted from: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8e4p4297eo
What is the primary purpose of the text?

Social media algorithms, introduced by Facebook in 2009, have revolutionized how we interact online, yet they present challenges akin to unruly teenagers, amplifying harmful content and disinformation. Governments worldwide are trying to curb these excesses: Brazil temporarily banned X (formerly Twitter), the EU threatened tech firms with fines for election interference, the UK introduced an online safety act, and the US proposed a TikTok ban.

Critics argue these actions threaten free speech, reminiscent of John Perry Barlow’s 1996 essay urging governments to stay out of cyberspace. Free speech advocates like Adam Candeub, a former advisor to President Trump, fear government control but also criticize social media’s polarizing effect, exacerbated by algorithms. Candeub believes in a “marketplace of ideas where speech should compete freely, but others, like Yale lecturer Asha Rangappa, argue that algorithms distort this marketplace, giving preference to sensational content rather than fostering democratic debate.

Early social media functioned as a public sphere, but today, algorithms decide what users see, often amplifying controversial topics for engagement. This skews public discourse, misrepresenting majority opinions and exaggerating discord. Although platforms like Facebook claim they don’t block content, their algorithms shape what people see, making “free speech” more about reach than expression. Critics argue this severs the direct link between speakers and audiences, shifting control from individuals to algorithms.

In what is now called the “algorithmic society,” platforms and search engines wield influence aver speech, akin to how nation-states once governed it. Legal scholars argue that current free speech protections are insufficient, as social media platforms play an active role in shaping public discourse. Algorithm transparency is proposed as a solution, but there is no neutral way to design social media.

Efforts to mitigate algorithmic control, such as chronological feeds, have limitations. Yet platforms like X now offer users the option to curate their own content. Francis Fukuyama suggests “middleware” as a third solution, allowing users more control over what they see by using independent content filters.

As social media matures, control might shift from tech companies and politicians to users. A growing number of people now prefer closed, private group chats over public sharing, signaling a desire for more accountable, less sensationalized online spaces. The future of algorithms could lie with the people, not big tech.

Adapted from: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8e4p4297eo
What would be a logical continuation of the ideas presented in the passage?

Social media algorithms, introduced by Facebook in 2009, have revolutionized how we interact online, yet they present challenges akin to unruly teenagers, amplifying harmful content and disinformation. Governments worldwide are trying to curb these excesses: Brazil temporarily banned X (formerly Twitter), the EU threatened tech firms with fines for election interference, the UK introduced an online safety act, and the US proposed a TikTok ban.

Critics argue these actions threaten free speech, reminiscent of John Perry Barlow’s 1996 essay urging governments to stay out of cyberspace. Free speech advocates like Adam Candeub, a former advisor to President Trump, fear government control but also criticize social media’s polarizing effect, exacerbated by algorithms. Candeub believes in a “marketplace of ideas where speech should compete freely, but others, like Yale lecturer Asha Rangappa, argue that algorithms distort this marketplace, giving preference to sensational content rather than fostering democratic debate.

Early social media functioned as a public sphere, but today, algorithms decide what users see, often amplifying controversial topics for engagement. This skews public discourse, misrepresenting majority opinions and exaggerating discord. Although platforms like Facebook claim they don’t block content, their algorithms shape what people see, making “free speech” more about reach than expression. Critics argue this severs the direct link between speakers and audiences, shifting control from individuals to algorithms.

In what is now called the “algorithmic society,” platforms and search engines wield influence aver speech, akin to how nation-states once governed it. Legal scholars argue that current free speech protections are insufficient, as social media platforms play an active role in shaping public discourse. Algorithm transparency is proposed as a solution, but there is no neutral way to design social media.

Efforts to mitigate algorithmic control, such as chronological feeds, have limitations. Yet platforms like X now offer users the option to curate their own content. Francis Fukuyama suggests “middleware” as a third solution, allowing users more control over what they see by using independent content filters.

As social media matures, control might shift from tech companies and politicians to users. A growing number of people now prefer closed, private group chats over public sharing, signaling a desire for more accountable, less sensationalized online spaces. The future of algorithms could lie with the people, not big tech.

Adapted from: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8e4p4297eo
What is the best summary of the text?

Social media algorithms, introduced by Facebook in 2009, have revolutionized how we interact online, yet they present challenges akin to unruly teenagers, amplifying harmful content and disinformation. Governments worldwide are trying to curb these excesses: Brazil temporarily banned X (formerly Twitter), the EU threatened tech firms with fines for election interference, the UK introduced an online safety act, and the US proposed a TikTok ban.

Critics argue these actions threaten free speech, reminiscent of John Perry Barlow’s 1996 essay urging governments to stay out of cyberspace. Free speech advocates like Adam Candeub, a former advisor to President Trump, fear government control but also criticize social media’s polarizing effect, exacerbated by algorithms. Candeub believes in a “marketplace of ideas where speech should compete freely, but others, like Yale lecturer Asha Rangappa, argue that algorithms distort this marketplace, giving preference to sensational content rather than fostering democratic debate.

Early social media functioned as a public sphere, but today, algorithms decide what users see, often amplifying controversial topics for engagement. This skews public discourse, misrepresenting majority opinions and exaggerating discord. Although platforms like Facebook claim they don’t block content, their algorithms shape what people see, making “free speech” more about reach than expression. Critics argue this severs the direct link between speakers and audiences, shifting control from individuals to algorithms.

In what is now called the “algorithmic society,” platforms and search engines wield influence aver speech, akin to how nation-states once governed it. Legal scholars argue that current free speech protections are insufficient, as social media platforms play an active role in shaping public discourse. Algorithm transparency is proposed as a solution, but there is no neutral way to design social media.

Efforts to mitigate algorithmic control, such as chronological feeds, have limitations. Yet platforms like X now offer users the option to curate their own content. Francis Fukuyama suggests “middleware” as a third solution, allowing users more control over what they see by using independent content filters.

As social media matures, control might shift from tech companies and politicians to users. A growing number of people now prefer closed, private group chats over public sharing, signaling a desire for more accountable, less sensationalized online spaces. The future of algorithms could lie with the people, not big tech.

Adapted from: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8e4p4297eo
Which option provides the most accurate paraphrase of the sentence “Efforts to mitigate algorithmic control, such as chronological feeds, have limitations.”?

Advocates for animals are becoming increasingly strident, even to the extent of using terrorist tactics Their Ire is more typically directed against laboratories that use animals, but zoos also have come under fire Some animal rights extremists have expressed a goal of putting zoos out of existence. Extreme though these views may be, they signal a shift in public attitudes toward animal welfare. Many people now consider animals as fellow creatures with needs and feelings that should be respected. Zoos that have not become attuned to perceptions of animal welfare have often experienced an erosion of public support. Some of the poorer, old-fashioned zoos have closed and even some prominent zoos have almost succumbed

These animal advocates often confuse animal rights with animal welfare, and their anthropomorphic ideas about what animals need are often at odds with what is best for animals. For example, well-meaning protestors tried to prevent the transfer of a gorilla named Timmy, who had never procreated, to a zoo in New York that had considerable success in breeding gorillas as well as many potential fertile mates for Timmy. The protestors did not want Timmy to be separated from his current, infertile female partner. However, in nature gorillas do not form monogamous bonds and they do transfer from one social group to another. Eventually, after court battles, Timmy was moved, formed bands with new females, and has begotten numerous offspring.

A related problem is the limited space in zoos.

Thus, breeding unwanted, “surplus” animals is a problem for zoos because surplus animals inhabit valuable space. Some zoos take the apparently logical stance, from a utilitarian animal management vantage, of culling their surplus stocks or selling them to the private collectors. In private hands, some animals have ended up on game ranches where they are shot for sport. This has caused major public relations imbroglios, as a result of which zoos have had to examine their ethical policies and restrict their animal trade to within accredited zoos.

Zoos have developed contraceptive and husbandry techniques to prevent unplanned breeding, and they have developed scientific breeding plans to keep population demographics aligned with available space. Furthermore, there has been a trend of exchanging animals without fees as they become increasingly priceless

Zoos have also added applied psychology to their toolkits. They now must reassure their public that animals are not distressed but are potentially “happy” New techniques are being developed to stimulate zoo animals, reduce psychological stress and elicit cooperation rather than coerce desired behaviors

(Taken from AM. Lyles, “Zoos and Zoological Parks” Encyclopedia of Blodiversity, vol 5. P. 904)
What is the topic of the text?

Advocates for animals are becoming increasingly strident, even to the extent of using terrorist tactics Their Ire is more typically directed against laboratories that use animals, but zoos also have come under fire Some animal rights extremists have expressed a goal of putting zoos out of existence. Extreme though these views may be, they signal a shift in public attitudes toward animal welfare. Many people now consider animals as fellow creatures with needs and feelings that should be respected. Zoos that have not become attuned to perceptions of animal welfare have often experienced an erosion of public support. Some of the poorer, old-fashioned zoos have closed and even some prominent zoos have almost succumbed

These animal advocates often confuse animal rights with animal welfare, and their anthropomorphic ideas about what animals need are often at odds with what is best for animals. For example, well-meaning protestors tried to prevent the transfer of a gorilla named Timmy, who had never procreated, to a zoo in New York that had considerable success in breeding gorillas as well as many potential fertile mates for Timmy. The protestors did not want Timmy to be separated from his current, infertile female partner. However, in nature gorillas do not form monogamous bonds and they do transfer from one social group to another. Eventually, after court battles, Timmy was moved, formed bands with new females, and has begotten numerous offspring.

A related problem is the limited space in zoos.

Thus, breeding unwanted, “surplus” animals is a problem for zoos because surplus animals inhabit valuable space. Some zoos take the apparently logical stance, from a utilitarian animal management vantage, of culling their surplus stocks or selling them to the private collectors. In private hands, some animals have ended up on game ranches where they are shot for sport. This has caused major public relations imbroglios, as a result of which zoos have had to examine their ethical policies and restrict their animal trade to within accredited zoos.

Zoos have developed contraceptive and husbandry techniques to prevent unplanned breeding, and they have developed scientific breeding plans to keep population demographics aligned with available space. Furthermore, there has been a trend of exchanging animals without fees as they become increasingly priceless

Zoos have also added applied psychology to their toolkits. They now must reassure their public that animals are not distressed but are potentially “happy” New techniques are being developed to stimulate zoo animals, reduce psychological stress and elicit cooperation rather than coerce desired behaviors

(Taken from AM. Lyles, “Zoos and Zoological Parks” Encyclopedia of Blodiversity, vol 5. P. 904)
The word “ire” in the second sentence of the first paragraph could best be replaced by which of the following?

Advocates for animals are becoming increasingly strident, even to the extent of using terrorist tactics Their Ire is more typically directed against laboratories that use animals, but zoos also have come under fire Some animal rights extremists have expressed a goal of putting zoos out of existence. Extreme though these views may be, they signal a shift in public attitudes toward animal welfare. Many people now consider animals as fellow creatures with needs and feelings that should be respected. Zoos that have not become attuned to perceptions of animal welfare have often experienced an erosion of public support. Some of the poorer, old-fashioned zoos have closed and even some prominent zoos have almost succumbed

These animal advocates often confuse animal rights with animal welfare, and their anthropomorphic ideas about what animals need are often at odds with what is best for animals. For example, well-meaning protestors tried to prevent the transfer of a gorilla named Timmy, who had never procreated, to a zoo in New York that had considerable success in breeding gorillas as well as many potential fertile mates for Timmy. The protestors did not want Timmy to be separated from his current, infertile female partner. However, in nature gorillas do not form monogamous bonds and they do transfer from one social group to another. Eventually, after court battles, Timmy was moved, formed bands with new females, and has begotten numerous offspring.

A related problem is the limited space in zoos.

Thus, breeding unwanted, “surplus” animals is a problem for zoos because surplus animals inhabit valuable space. Some zoos take the apparently logical stance, from a utilitarian animal management vantage, of culling their surplus stocks or selling them to the private collectors. In private hands, some animals have ended up on game ranches where they are shot for sport. This has caused major public relations imbroglios, as a result of which zoos have had to examine their ethical policies and restrict their animal trade to within accredited zoos.

Zoos have developed contraceptive and husbandry techniques to prevent unplanned breeding, and they have developed scientific breeding plans to keep population demographics aligned with available space. Furthermore, there has been a trend of exchanging animals without fees as they become increasingly priceless

Zoos have also added applied psychology to their toolkits. They now must reassure their public that animals are not distressed but are potentially “happy” New techniques are being developed to stimulate zoo animals, reduce psychological stress and elicit cooperation rather than coerce desired behaviors

(Taken from AM. Lyles, “Zoos and Zoological Parks” Encyclopedia of Blodiversity, vol 5. P. 904)
It is implied in paragraph 1 that…

Advocates for animals are becoming increasingly strident, even to the extent of using terrorist tactics Their Ire is more typically directed against laboratories that use animals, but zoos also have come under fire Some animal rights extremists have expressed a goal of putting zoos out of existence. Extreme though these views may be, they signal a shift in public attitudes toward animal welfare. Many people now consider animals as fellow creatures with needs and feelings that should be respected. Zoos that have not become attuned to perceptions of animal welfare have often experienced an erosion of public support. Some of the poorer, old-fashioned zoos have closed and even some prominent zoos have almost succumbed

These animal advocates often confuse animal rights with animal welfare, and their anthropomorphic ideas about what animals need are often at odds with what is best for animals. For example, well-meaning protestors tried to prevent the transfer of a gorilla named Timmy, who had never procreated, to a zoo in New York that had considerable success in breeding gorillas as well as many potential fertile mates for Timmy. The protestors did not want Timmy to be separated from his current, infertile female partner. However, in nature gorillas do not form monogamous bonds and they do transfer from one social group to another. Eventually, after court battles, Timmy was moved, formed bands with new females, and has begotten numerous offspring.

A related problem is the limited space in zoos.

Thus, breeding unwanted, “surplus” animals is a problem for zoos because surplus animals inhabit valuable space. Some zoos take the apparently logical stance, from a utilitarian animal management vantage, of culling their surplus stocks or selling them to the private collectors. In private hands, some animals have ended up on game ranches where they are shot for sport. This has caused major public relations imbroglios, as a result of which zoos have had to examine their ethical policies and restrict their animal trade to within accredited zoos.

Zoos have developed contraceptive and husbandry techniques to prevent unplanned breeding, and they have developed scientific breeding plans to keep population demographics aligned with available space. Furthermore, there has been a trend of exchanging animals without fees as they become increasingly priceless

Zoos have also added applied psychology to their toolkits. They now must reassure their public that animals are not distressed but are potentially “happy” New techniques are being developed to stimulate zoo animals, reduce psychological stress and elicit cooperation rather than coerce desired behaviors

(Taken from AM. Lyles, “Zoos and Zoological Parks” Encyclopedia of Blodiversity, vol 5. P. 904)
According to the text, which of the following statements is TRUE about Timmy?

Advocates for animals are becoming increasingly strident, even to the extent of using terrorist tactics Their Ire is more typically directed against laboratories that use animals, but zoos also have come under fire Some animal rights extremists have expressed a goal of putting zoos out of existence. Extreme though these views may be, they signal a shift in public attitudes toward animal welfare. Many people now consider animals as fellow creatures with needs and feelings that should be respected. Zoos that have not become attuned to perceptions of animal welfare have often experienced an erosion of public support. Some of the poorer, old-fashioned zoos have closed and even some prominent zoos have almost succumbed

These animal advocates often confuse animal rights with animal welfare, and their anthropomorphic ideas about what animals need are often at odds with what is best for animals. For example, well-meaning protestors tried to prevent the transfer of a gorilla named Timmy, who had never procreated, to a zoo in New York that had considerable success in breeding gorillas as well as many potential fertile mates for Timmy. The protestors did not want Timmy to be separated from his current, infertile female partner. However, in nature gorillas do not form monogamous bonds and they do transfer from one social group to another. Eventually, after court battles, Timmy was moved, formed bands with new females, and has begotten numerous offspring.

A related problem is the limited space in zoos.

Thus, breeding unwanted, “surplus” animals is a problem for zoos because surplus animals inhabit valuable space. Some zoos take the apparently logical stance, from a utilitarian animal management vantage, of culling their surplus stocks or selling them to the private collectors. In private hands, some animals have ended up on game ranches where they are shot for sport. This has caused major public relations imbroglios, as a result of which zoos have had to examine their ethical policies and restrict their animal trade to within accredited zoos.

Zoos have developed contraceptive and husbandry techniques to prevent unplanned breeding, and they have developed scientific breeding plans to keep population demographics aligned with available space. Furthermore, there has been a trend of exchanging animals without fees as they become increasingly priceless

Zoos have also added applied psychology to their toolkits. They now must reassure their public that animals are not distressed but are potentially “happy” New techniques are being developed to stimulate zoo animals, reduce psychological stress and elicit cooperation rather than coerce desired behaviors

(Taken from AM. Lyles, “Zoos and Zoological Parks” Encyclopedia of Blodiversity, vol 5. P. 904)
Why does the author mention “Timmy” in paragraph 2?

Advocates for animals are becoming increasingly strident, even to the extent of using terrorist tactics Their Ire is more typically directed against laboratories that use animals, but zoos also have come under fire Some animal rights extremists have expressed a goal of putting zoos out of existence. Extreme though these views may be, they signal a shift in public attitudes toward animal welfare. Many people now consider animals as fellow creatures with needs and feelings that should be respected. Zoos that have not become attuned to perceptions of animal welfare have often experienced an erosion of public support. Some of the poorer, old-fashioned zoos have closed and even some prominent zoos have almost succumbed

These animal advocates often confuse animal rights with animal welfare, and their anthropomorphic ideas about what animals need are often at odds with what is best for animals. For example, well-meaning protestors tried to prevent the transfer of a gorilla named Timmy, who had never procreated, to a zoo in New York that had considerable success in breeding gorillas as well as many potential fertile mates for Timmy. The protestors did not want Timmy to be separated from his current, infertile female partner. However, in nature gorillas do not form monogamous bonds and they do transfer from one social group to another. Eventually, after court battles, Timmy was moved, formed bands with new females, and has begotten numerous offspring.

A related problem is the limited space in zoos.

Thus, breeding unwanted, “surplus” animals is a problem for zoos because surplus animals inhabit valuable space. Some zoos take the apparently logical stance, from a utilitarian animal management vantage, of culling their surplus stocks or selling them to the private collectors. In private hands, some animals have ended up on game ranches where they are shot for sport. This has caused major public relations imbroglios, as a result of which zoos have had to examine their ethical policies and restrict their animal trade to within accredited zoos.

Zoos have developed contraceptive and husbandry techniques to prevent unplanned breeding, and they have developed scientific breeding plans to keep population demographics aligned with available space. Furthermore, there has been a trend of exchanging animals without fees as they become increasingly priceless

Zoos have also added applied psychology to their toolkits. They now must reassure their public that animals are not distressed but are potentially “happy” New techniques are being developed to stimulate zoo animals, reduce psychological stress and elicit cooperation rather than coerce desired behaviors

(Taken from AM. Lyles, “Zoos and Zoological Parks” Encyclopedia of Blodiversity, vol 5. P. 904)
According to the text, why do surplus animals pose problems to zoos?

Advocates for animals are becoming increasingly strident, even to the extent of using terrorist tactics Their Ire is more typically directed against laboratories that use animals, but zoos also have come under fire Some animal rights extremists have expressed a goal of putting zoos out of existence. Extreme though these views may be, they signal a shift in public attitudes toward animal welfare. Many people now consider animals as fellow creatures with needs and feelings that should be respected. Zoos that have not become attuned to perceptions of animal welfare have often experienced an erosion of public support. Some of the poorer, old-fashioned zoos have closed and even some prominent zoos have almost succumbed

These animal advocates often confuse animal rights with animal welfare, and their anthropomorphic ideas about what animals need are often at odds with what is best for animals. For example, well-meaning protestors tried to prevent the transfer of a gorilla named Timmy, who had never procreated, to a zoo in New York that had considerable success in breeding gorillas as well as many potential fertile mates for Timmy. The protestors did not want Timmy to be separated from his current, infertile female partner. However, in nature gorillas do not form monogamous bonds and they do transfer from one social group to another. Eventually, after court battles, Timmy was moved, formed bands with new females, and has begotten numerous offspring.

A related problem is the limited space in zoos.

Thus, breeding unwanted, “surplus” animals is a problem for zoos because surplus animals inhabit valuable space. Some zoos take the apparently logical stance, from a utilitarian animal management vantage, of culling their surplus stocks or selling them to the private collectors. In private hands, some animals have ended up on game ranches where they are shot for sport. This has caused major public relations imbroglios, as a result of which zoos have had to examine their ethical policies and restrict their animal trade to within accredited zoos.

Zoos have developed contraceptive and husbandry techniques to prevent unplanned breeding, and they have developed scientific breeding plans to keep population demographics aligned with available space. Furthermore, there has been a trend of exchanging animals without fees as they become increasingly priceless

Zoos have also added applied psychology to their toolkits. They now must reassure their public that animals are not distressed but are potentially “happy” New techniques are being developed to stimulate zoo animals, reduce psychological stress and elicit cooperation rather than coerce desired behaviors

(Taken from AM. Lyles, “Zoos and Zoological Parks” Encyclopedia of Blodiversity, vol 5. P. 904)
The pronoun “they” in the last sentence of the fourth paragraph refers to….

Advocates for animals are becoming increasingly strident, even to the extent of using terrorist tactics Their Ire is more typically directed against laboratories that use animals, but zoos also have come under fire Some animal rights extremists have expressed a goal of putting zoos out of existence. Extreme though these views may be, they signal a shift in public attitudes toward animal welfare. Many people now consider animals as fellow creatures with needs and feelings that should be respected. Zoos that have not become attuned to perceptions of animal welfare have often experienced an erosion of public support. Some of the poorer, old-fashioned zoos have closed and even some prominent zoos have almost succumbed

These animal advocates often confuse animal rights with animal welfare, and their anthropomorphic ideas about what animals need are often at odds with what is best for animals. For example, well-meaning protestors tried to prevent the transfer of a gorilla named Timmy, who had never procreated, to a zoo in New York that had considerable success in breeding gorillas as well as many potential fertile mates for Timmy. The protestors did not want Timmy to be separated from his current, infertile female partner. However, in nature gorillas do not form monogamous bonds and they do transfer from one social group to another. Eventually, after court battles, Timmy was moved, formed bands with new females, and has begotten numerous offspring.

A related problem is the limited space in zoos.

Thus, breeding unwanted, “surplus” animals is a problem for zoos because surplus animals inhabit valuable space. Some zoos take the apparently logical stance, from a utilitarian animal management vantage, of culling their surplus stocks or selling them to the private collectors. In private hands, some animals have ended up on game ranches where they are shot for sport. This has caused major public relations imbroglios, as a result of which zoos have had to examine their ethical policies and restrict their animal trade to within accredited zoos.

Zoos have developed contraceptive and husbandry techniques to prevent unplanned breeding, and they have developed scientific breeding plans to keep population demographics aligned with available space. Furthermore, there has been a trend of exchanging animals without fees as they become increasingly priceless

Zoos have also added applied psychology to their toolkits. They now must reassure their public that animals are not distressed but are potentially “happy” New techniques are being developed to stimulate zoo animals, reduce psychological stress and elicit cooperation rather than coerce desired behaviors

(Taken from AM. Lyles, “Zoos and Zoological Parks” Encyclopedia of Blodiversity, vol 5. P. 904)
The text states all of the following, EXCEPT….

Advocates for animals are becoming increasingly strident, even to the extent of using terrorist tactics Their Ire is more typically directed against laboratories that use animals, but zoos also have come under fire Some animal rights extremists have expressed a goal of putting zoos out of existence. Extreme though these views may be, they signal a shift in public attitudes toward animal welfare. Many people now consider animals as fellow creatures with needs and feelings that should be respected. Zoos that have not become attuned to perceptions of animal welfare have often experienced an erosion of public support. Some of the poorer, old-fashioned zoos have closed and even some prominent zoos have almost succumbed

These animal advocates often confuse animal rights with animal welfare, and their anthropomorphic ideas about what animals need are often at odds with what is best for animals. For example, well-meaning protestors tried to prevent the transfer of a gorilla named Timmy, who had never procreated, to a zoo in New York that had considerable success in breeding gorillas as well as many potential fertile mates for Timmy. The protestors did not want Timmy to be separated from his current, infertile female partner. However, in nature gorillas do not form monogamous bonds and they do transfer from one social group to another. Eventually, after court battles, Timmy was moved, formed bands with new females, and has begotten numerous offspring.

A related problem is the limited space in zoos.

Thus, breeding unwanted, “surplus” animals is a problem for zoos because surplus animals inhabit valuable space. Some zoos take the apparently logical stance, from a utilitarian animal management vantage, of culling their surplus stocks or selling them to the private collectors. In private hands, some animals have ended up on game ranches where they are shot for sport. This has caused major public relations imbroglios, as a result of which zoos have had to examine their ethical policies and restrict their animal trade to within accredited zoos.

Zoos have developed contraceptive and husbandry techniques to prevent unplanned breeding, and they have developed scientific breeding plans to keep population demographics aligned with available space. Furthermore, there has been a trend of exchanging animals without fees as they become increasingly priceless

Zoos have also added applied psychology to their toolkits. They now must reassure their public that animals are not distressed but are potentially “happy” New techniques are being developed to stimulate zoo animals, reduce psychological stress and elicit cooperation rather than coerce desired behaviors

(Taken from AM. Lyles, “Zoos and Zoological Parks” Encyclopedia of Blodiversity, vol 5. P. 904)
The word “elicit” in the last sentence of the last paragraph is most similar to….

Advocates for animals are becoming increasingly strident, even to the extent of using terrorist tactics Their Ire is more typically directed against laboratories that use animals, but zoos also have come under fire Some animal rights extremists have expressed a goal of putting zoos out of existence. Extreme though these views may be, they signal a shift in public attitudes toward animal welfare. Many people now consider animals as fellow creatures with needs and feelings that should be respected. Zoos that have not become attuned to perceptions of animal welfare have often experienced an erosion of public support. Some of the poorer, old-fashioned zoos have closed and even some prominent zoos have almost succumbed

These animal advocates often confuse animal rights with animal welfare, and their anthropomorphic ideas about what animals need are often at odds with what is best for animals. For example, well-meaning protestors tried to prevent the transfer of a gorilla named Timmy, who had never procreated, to a zoo in New York that had considerable success in breeding gorillas as well as many potential fertile mates for Timmy. The protestors did not want Timmy to be separated from his current, infertile female partner. However, in nature gorillas do not form monogamous bonds and they do transfer from one social group to another. Eventually, after court battles, Timmy was moved, formed bands with new females, and has begotten numerous offspring.

A related problem is the limited space in zoos.

Thus, breeding unwanted, “surplus” animals is a problem for zoos because surplus animals inhabit valuable space. Some zoos take the apparently logical stance, from a utilitarian animal management vantage, of culling their surplus stocks or selling them to the private collectors. In private hands, some animals have ended up on game ranches where they are shot for sport. This has caused major public relations imbroglios, as a result of which zoos have had to examine their ethical policies and restrict their animal trade to within accredited zoos.

Zoos have developed contraceptive and husbandry techniques to prevent unplanned breeding, and they have developed scientific breeding plans to keep population demographics aligned with available space. Furthermore, there has been a trend of exchanging animals without fees as they become increasingly priceless

Zoos have also added applied psychology to their toolkits. They now must reassure their public that animals are not distressed but are potentially “happy” New techniques are being developed to stimulate zoo animals, reduce psychological stress and elicit cooperation rather than coerce desired behaviors

(Taken from AM. Lyles, “Zoos and Zoological Parks” Encyclopedia of Blodiversity, vol 5. P. 904)
It can be inferred from the text that…..

A research indicates forest bathing also provides a defense against the pangs of anxiety, stress, depression, and other inflictions on one’s mind. In recognition of its potential to help, Japan has included it in its national health service as an intervention for mental health. Shinrin-yoku seems to have a positive impact on post-traumatic stress disorder, has been observed to have benefits for those dealing with insomnia, and has improved the mood of people with unhealthy alcohol use. One study even did something as simple as studying facial expressions and found that people became happier by spending a few hours in the embrace of green. Such is the power of the forest that even video of it can induce some of the same physical reactions.

There is no singular way to practice forest bathing, nor is there an exact amount of time prescribed. Some practitioners suggest that a single session last from two to four hours, but some research has demonstrated that even 15 minutes can have beneficial short-term effects on mental health. There are a range of activities within forest bathing including walking, standing, sitting, and deep breathing all while being mindful of one’s senses. Dr. Yoshifumi Miyazaki of Chiba University, among the world’s foremost experts on shinrin-yoku and an author of a popular book on the subject, suggests turning off your phone and engaging in shikan shoyou, which translates to “nothing but wandering along.” “Pay attention to any areas of stiffness or pain the body and consciously relax them,” Miyazaki writes. “Become aware of your present mental and emotional states….

Pay attention to the experience of walking and keep your awareness engaged in this experience. Be aware of the beginning, the middle and the end of your stepping. Walk as silently as possible.

Will forest bathing in Portland Japanese Garden solve all your woes? No, but it can be your bulwark against the anxieties of today’s tumultuous times. As our chief curator, Sadafumi Uchiyama once expressed in an interview with The Dirt, “…We are a place, an occasion in time, to enable them to think
and have conversation that otherwise may T be harder to have elsewhere…Somehow the Garden brings emotional stability” Join Portland Japanese Garden as a member and visit often-inner peace is here, in the green.

Ops//panese gorden.org)
Forest bathing is beneficial for people, EXCEPT….

A research indicates forest bathing also provides a defense against the pangs of anxiety, stress, depression, and other inflictions on one’s mind. In recognition of its potential to help, Japan has included it in its national health service as an intervention for mental health. Shinrin-yoku seems to have a positive impact on post-traumatic stress disorder, has been observed to have benefits for those dealing with insomnia, and has improved the mood of people with unhealthy alcohol use. One study even did something as simple as studying facial expressions and found that people became happier by spending a few hours in the embrace of green. Such is the power of the forest that even video of it can induce some of the same physical reactions.

There is no singular way to practice forest bathing, nor is there an exact amount of time prescribed. Some practitioners suggest that a single session last from two to four hours, but some research has demonstrated that even 15 minutes can have beneficial short-term effects on mental health. There are a range of activities within forest bathing including walking, standing, sitting, and deep breathing all while being mindful of one’s senses. Dr. Yoshifumi Miyazaki of Chiba University, among the world’s foremost experts on shinrin-yoku and an author of a popular book on the subject, suggests turning off your phone and engaging in shikan shoyou, which translates to “nothing but wandering along.” “Pay attention to any areas of stiffness or pain the body and consciously relax them,” Miyazaki writes. “Become aware of your present mental and emotional states….

Pay attention to the experience of walking and keep your awareness engaged in this experience. Be aware of the beginning, the middle and the end of your stepping. Walk as silently as possible.

Will forest bathing in Portland Japanese Garden solve all your woes? No, but it can be your bulwark against the anxieties of today’s tumultuous times. As our chief curator, Sadafumi Uchiyama once expressed in an interview with The Dirt, “…We are a place, an occasion in time, to enable them to think
and have conversation that otherwise may T be harder to have elsewhere…Somehow the Garden brings emotional stability” Join Portland Japanese Garden as a member and visit often-inner peace is here, in the green.

Ops//panese gorden.org)
It seems that fidgety times trigger…..