READING PASSAGE 1 – Homeopathy

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 1-13 which are based on Reading Passage 1 below.

A. Homeopathy is an alternative system of medicine, founded in the early 19th century by a German physician, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann. Since 1980, homeopathy has experienced a strong resurgence of interest in North and South America as well as in Europe. Surveys indicate that more than a third of French physicians have prescribed homeopathic remedies and almost 50 percent of British physicians have referred patients for homeopathic treatment.

B. Hahnemann’s discovery of the principle of homeopathy was accidental. After taking some quinine, he noticed that he developed malaria-like symptoms. Since malaria patients were treated with quinine, he speculated that possibly malaria is cured by quinine because it causes malaria-like symptoms in healthy people. He decided to explore his theory by testing other substances used as medicine at the time, such as arsenic and belladonna. His tests were conducted by either taking the substances internally himself or by administering them to healthy volunteers and then recording all of the symptoms the volunteers experienced. He continued his experiments on a wide range of natural substances, often toxic. These recorded results created ‘drug pictures’ which formed the basis for the new system of medicine. The next step was to give the tested substances to patients suffering from the same group of symptoms represented by the drug picture recorded. The results were incredible. People were being cured from diseases that had never been cured before. He condensed his theory into a single Latin phrase: similia similibus curentur (let likes be cured by likes). This means that a disease can be cured by a medicine which produces in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those experienced by the patient.

C. The process of making remedies is very precise. A homeopathic remedy is normally a single substance. The substances may be made from plants, minerals and even animals, for example snake venom and cuttlefish ink. To make remedies, the raw material is dissolved in a mixture that contains approximately 90% alcohol and 10% water. The mixture is left to stand for 2 to 4 weeks, shaken occasionally then strained. The resulting liquid or tincture is then diluted according to very specific measures to a factor of 1:100. For example, to produce a remedy called 1c potency or strength, one drop of the tincture is added to 99 drops of alcohol/water mixture. To produce a 2c potency, one drop of the 1c mixture is added to 99 drops of alcohol/water mixture. Between each mixture the remedy is shaken vigorously. Hahnemann believed that through this process, the energy of the substance was released. Once the remedy has been diluted beyond a 12c potency, it is unlikely that even a molecule of the original substance remains. Yet, ironically, the more dilute the remedy, the stronger it is. This makes no sense in light of present-day science but regardless of what science tells us is impossible, in practice, the higher the dilution the stronger and more lasting the effect.

D. It is this use of high dilutions that has given rise to controversy. Many conventional doctors claim that homeopathy functions only as a placebo because the dosage is so small. However, the clinical experience of homeopathy shows that this tiny dose can be effective: it works on unconscious people and infants, and it even works on animals. Controlled clinical studies performed by medical researchers are demonstrating that homeopathy can be an effective method of treatment for many diseases.

E. The most important part of homeopathic treatment lies in the lengthy interview which the homeopath conducts with the patient. The idea behind this one to two hour consultation is to build up a psychological, emotional and physical history of the patient, to discover the underlying patterns of disease. The homeopath then decides which medicine to prescribe based on the closest match between the patient’s symptoms and the known symptoms elicited by the medicine in a healthy body. A single dose is given for the shortest period of time necessary to stimulate the body’s healing power.

F. How does the concept of homeopathy differ from that of conventional medicine? Very simply, homeopathy attempts to stimulate the body to recover itself. In-stead of looking upon the symptoms as something wrong which must be set right, the homeopath sees them as signs of the way the body is attempting to help itself. Another basic difference between conventional medical therapy and homeopathy is in the role of medication. In much of conventional therapy the illness is controlled through regular use of medical substances. If the medication is withdrawn, the person returns to illness. For example, a person who takes a pill for high blood pressure every day is not undergoing a cure but is only controlling the symptoms. Homeopathy’s aim is the cure: ‘The complete restoration of perfect health,’ as Dr. Hahnemann said.

G. Homeopathy has made significant progress in treating diseases which orthodox medicine finds difficult. Best at dealing with inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, skin conditions, migraines and respiratory problems linked to allergies, it has also proved highly successful at treating asthma. But homeopathy is not an appropriate treatment for degenerative diseases such as emphysema. It cannot treat diseases which destroy tissue, although it can still be beneficial if used in combination with other treatments. Two of the main advantages of homeotherapy are the low cost of the medications and the rarity of adverse reactions. The medicines are inexpensive, safe, and easy to use, so people can learn to handle many of the common illnesses for which they currently seek medical help. The resulting savings in costs and the increase in personal independence represent a significant contribution to health care

Reading Passage 2 – Biology of Bitterness

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 14-27 which are based on Reading Passage 2

To many people, grapefruit is palatable only when doused in sugar. Bitter Blockers like adenosine monophosphate could change that.

A. There is a reason why grapefruit juice is served in little glasses: most people don’t want to drink more than a few ounces at a time.  aringin, a natural chemical compound found in grapefruit, tastes bitter. Some people like that bitterness in small doses and believe it enhances the general flavor, but others would rather avoid it altogether. So juice packagers often select grapefruit with low naringin though the compound has antioxidant properties that some nutritionists contend may help prevent cancer and arteriosclerosis.

B. It is possible, however, to get the goodness of grapefruit juice without the bitter taste. I found that out by participating in a test conducted at the Linguagen Corporation, a biotechnology company in Cranbury, New Jersey. Sets of two miniature white paper cups, labeled 304and 305, were placed before five people seated around a conference table. Each of us drank from one cup and then the other, cleansing our palates between tastes with water and a soda cracker. Even the smallest sip of 304 had grapefruit ‘s unmistakable bitter bite. But 305 was smoother; there was the sour taste of citrus but none of the bitterness of naringin. This juice had been treated with adenosine monophosphate, or AMP, a compound that blocks the bitterness in foods without making them less nutritious.

C. Taste research is a booming business these days, with scientists delving into all five basics-sweet, bitter, sour, salty, and umami, the savory taste of protein. Bitterness is of special interest to industry because of its untapped potential in food. There are thousands of bitter -tasting compounds in nature. They defend plants by warning animals away and protect animals by letting them know when a plant may be poisonous. But the system isn’t foolproof. Grapefruit and cruciferous vegetable like Brussels sprouts and kale are nutritious despite-and sometimes because of-their bitter-tasting components. Over time, many people have learned to love them, at least in small doses. “Humans are the only species that enjoys bitter taste,” says Charles Zuker, a neuroscientist at the University of  California School of Medicine at San Diego. “Every other species is averse to bitter because it means bad news. But we have learned to enjoy it. We drink coffee, which is bitter, and quinine [in tonic water] too. We enjoy having that spice in our lives.” Because bitterness can be pleasing in small quantities but repellent when intense, bitter blockers like AMP could make a whole range of foods, drinks, and medicines more palatable-and therefore more profitable.

D. People have varying capacities for tasting bitterness, and the differences appear to be genetic. About 75 percent of people are sensitive to the taste of the bitter compounds phenylthiocarbamide and 6-n-propylthiouracil. and 25 percent are insensitive. Those who are sensitive to phenylthiocarbamide seem to be less likely than others to eat cruciferous vegetables, according to Stephen Wooding, a geneticist at the University of Utah. Some people, known as supertasters, are especially sensitive to 6-n-propylthiouraci because they have an unusually high number of taste buds. Supertasters tend to shun all kinds of bitter-tasting things, including vegetable, coffee, and dark chocolate. Perhaps as a result, they tend to be thin. They’re also less fond of alcoholic drinks, which are often slightly bitter. Dewar’s scotch, for instance, tastes somewhat sweet to most people. ” But a supertaster tastes no sweetness at all, only bitterness,” says Valerie Duffy, an associate professor of dietetics at the University of Connecticut at Storrs.

E. In one recent study, Duffy found that supertasters consume alcoholic beverages, on average, only two to three times a week, compared with five or six times for the average nontasters. Each taste bud, which looks like an onion, consists of 50 to 100 elongated cells running from the top of the bud to the bottom. At the top is a little clump of receptors that capture the taste molecules, known as tastants, in food and drink. The receptors function much like those for sight and smell. Once a bitter signal has been received, it is relayed via proteins known as G proteins. The G protein involved in the perception of bitterness, sweetness, and umami was identified in the early 1990s by Linguagen’s founder, Robert Margolskee, at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. Known as gustducin, the protein triggers a cascade of chemical reactions that lead to changes in ion concentrations within the cell. Ultimately, this delivers a signal to the brain that
registers as bitter. “The signaling system is like a bucket brigade,” Margolskee says. “It goes from the G protein to other proteins.”

F. In 2000 Zuker and others found some 30 different kinds of genes that code for bitter-taste receptors. “We knew the number would have to be large because there is such a large universe of bitter tastants,” Zuker says. Yet no matter which tastant enters the mouth or which receptor it attaches to, bitter always tastes the same to us. The only variation derives from its intensity and the ways in which it can be flavored by the sense of smell. “Taste cells are like a light switch,” Zuker says. “They are either on or off.”

G. Once they figured put the taste mechanism, scientists began to think of ways to interfere with it. They tried AMP, an organic compound found in breast milk and other substances, which is created as cells break down food. Amp has no bitterness of its own, but when put it in foods, Margolskee and his colleagues discovered, it attaches to bitter-taste receptors. As effective as it is, AMP may not be able to dampen every type pf bitter taste, because it probably doesn’t attach to all 30 bitter-taste receptors. So Linguagen has scaled up the hunt for other bitter blockers with a technology called high-throughput screening. Researchers start by coaxing cells in culture to activate bitter-taste receptors. Then candidate substances, culled from chemical compound libraries, are dropped onto the receptors, and scientists look for evidence of a reaction.

H. Tin time, some taste researchers believe, compounds like AMP will help make processed foods less unhealthy. Consider, for example, that a single cup of Campbell’s chicken noodle soup contains 850 milligrams of sodium chloride, or table salt-more than a third of the recommended daily allowance. The salt masks the bitterness created by the high temperatures used in the canning process, which cause sugars and amino acids to react. Part of the salt could be replaced by another salt, potassium chloride, which tends to be scarce in some people’s diets. Potassium chloride has a bitter aftertaste, but that could be eliminated with a dose of AMP. Bitter blockers could also be used in place of cherry or grape flavoring to take the harshness out of children’s cough syrup, and they could dampen the bitterness of antihistamines, antibiotics, certain HIV drugs, and other medications.

I. A number of foodmakers have already begun to experiment with AMP in their products, and other bitter blockers are being developed by rival firms such as Senomyx in La Jolla, California. In a few years, perhaps, after food companies have taken the bitterness from canned soup and TV dinners, they can set their sights on something more useful: a bitter blocker in a bottle that any of us can sprinkle on our brussels sprouts or stir into our grapefruit juice.

READING PASSAGE 3 – The Invisible Thread

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 28-40 which are based on Reading Passage 3 below.

A. It lifts hearts and lengthens lives. It has been hailed as the ultimate good by philosophers and promoted by major religions. The wondrous good in question is friendship. Aristotle’s highest goal for men and the third plank of the French revolution – liberty, equality, fraternity — friendship is as aid as humanity and as important as love or justice. But while bookshop shelves groan with self-help books on finding the perfect partner and philosophical texts on the nature of freedom, friendship barely gets a mention among academics or policy-makers.

B. Friendship is the invisible thread running through society, yet its significance in our lives is, if anything, increasing. While the claim that ‘friends are the new family’ is an overstatement, it is certainly the case that friendships figure prominently in both the lives people actually lead and the ones to which they aspire. Television programmes such as Friends portray a world in which close friendships define the contours of the participants’ lives: parents and children are allowed, at best, walk-on parts.

C. One of the reasons why thinkers struggle to recognize this trend may be one of definition. After all, I am a friend to someone I have known and loved for twenty-five years, but I am also a “Friend of The Earth’. Friendship is a slippery category. This, however, is where philosophers are supposed to help. Aristotle divided friendships into three types: friendships for usefulness, friendships for pleasure, and friendships of virtue.

D. The first kind of friend is the one who will get you a job or membership of an exclusive club; the second makes you laugh. But in both cases, the point of the friendship is that they provide something of separate value to you. True friendship, the third kind, is valued for itself. There are few numerical limits on the first two kinds — I can have a vast business network and hundreds of agreeable acquaintances — but true friendship is, by definition, a limited field: if someone has many friends, they have none.

E. Virtuous friendship is long-term and committed and brings great psychological benefits, and there is plentiful research evidence showing that having at least one close friend is associated with a range of health benefits, from recovery times from cardiac illness to reduced incidence of mental health problems.

F. However, friendship is not always an unalloyed good. Its benefits are unevenly spread and its impact on traditional liberal values, such as equality, diversity and mobility, is mixed. The first problem is that men are worse at friendship than women. It is now widely acknowledged that women do more of the “social’ work than men and have better-developed friendship skills, which leaves men at a disadvantage.

G. Secondly, friendship has political downsides for governments committed to social inclusion: it is, by definition, exclusive. People from a particular social class or educational background are highly likely to form friendships, or romantic relationships, with people from the same background. Given that friends help each other, the danger is that the friendships of the affluent and successful hoard social advantage to the detriment of social mobility.

H. Friendship is seen — with some justification — as a private matter, but the strong links between friendship and other social goods – including better health, more effective careers, and higher life satisfaction — should be enough to merit greater attention from decision makers. So what are the political implications of these observations? Perhaps the best politicians can aim for is not to make things worse for friendship. But political institutions can improve or worsen the conditions in which friendships are formed.

I. First of all, the issue of time needs to be considered. Friendship requires time to flourish.Aristotle reckoned one and a half bushels of salt needed to be consumed together before a friendship became solid. At the present time, many people regard non-working hours as family time, but little allowance is made for the time needed to build friendships. Ironically, for politicians to discourage people from working long hours could be counter-productive, since a third of us make most of our friends through work. What the decision-makers could do, however, is discourage the drive for commercial gain that squeezes conviviality out of the workplace. 

J. There is also a case for encouraging spaces in which people from different backgrounds meet and interact in order to increase the chances of cross-class friendships. Given the increase in geographical inequality, with rich people increasingly living in neighbourhoods of rich people, only hospital wards and places of religious worship are sites of genuine social mixing.

K. Friendship is a virtue with some of the appearances of a social vice. It can promote or demote social mobility; underpin tolerance or bolster discrimination; erode or sustain hierarchies. Society could be composed of strong friendships between people of identical social backgrounds who treat everyone else with contempt, intolerance or fear. The true test of the friendliness of a community is not simply the way its citizens treat their friends, but whether they behave generously towards the broader social world. We need not only the care of friends but the kindness of strangers.