📘 What’s Inside This CAT RC Practice Post?
📝 Authentic CAT Reading Comprehension Passage: Practice with a real RC passage from a previous CAT exam.
✅ Detailed Questions with Step-by-Step Solutions: Each question is explained thoroughly for better understanding.
🔍 In-Depth Passage Analysis: Gain insights through line-by-line and paragraph-wise analysis, supplemented with a quick summary table for efficient revision.
📚 Vocabulary Enhancement: Get a separate post explaining all tough words from the passage.
RC Passage
Direction for the questions 13 to 16: The passage below is accompanied by a set of four questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
There is a group in the space community who view the solar system not as an opportunity to expand human potential but as a nature preserve, forever the provenance of an elite group of scientists and their sanitary robotic probes. These planetary protection advocates [call] for avoiding “harmful contamination” of celestial bodies. Under this regime, NASA incurs great expense sterilizing robotic probes in order to prevent the contamination of entirely theoretical biospheres
Transporting bacteria would matter if Mars were the vital world once imagined by astronomers who mistook optical illusions for canals. Nobody wants to expose Martians to measles, but sadly, robotic exploration reveals a bleak, rusted landscape, lacking oxygen and flooded with radiation ready to sterilize any Earthly microbes
Simple life might exist underground, or down at the bottom of a deep canyon, but it has been very hard to find with robots. . . . The upsides from human exploration and development of Mars clearly outweigh the welfare of purely speculative Martian fungi
The other likely targets of human exploration, development, and settlement, our moon and the asteroids, exist in a desiccated, radiation-soaked realm of hard vacuum and extreme temperature variations that would kill nearly anything. It’s also important to note that many international competitors will ignore the demands of these protection extremists in any case. For example, China recently sent a terrarium to the moon and germinated a plant seed—with, unsurprisingly, no protest from its own scientific community. In contrast, when it was recently revealed that a researcher had surreptitiously smuggled super-resilient microscopic tardigrades aboard the ill-fated Israeli Beresheet lunar probe, a firestorm was unleashed within the space community
NASA’s previous human exploration efforts made no serious attempt at sterility, with little notice. As the Mars expert Robert Zubrin noted in the National Review, U.S. lunar landings did not leave the campsites cleaner than they found it. Apollo’s bacteria-infested litter included bags of feces. Forcing NASA’s proposed Mars exploration to do better, scrubbing everything and hauling out all the trash, would destroy NASA’s human exploration budget and encroach on the agency’s other directorates, too. Getting future astronauts off Mars is enough of a challenge, without trying to tote weeks of waste along as well.
A reasonable compromise is to continue on the course laid out by the U.S. government and the National Research Council, which proposed a system of zones on Mars, some for science only, some for habitation, and some for resource exploitation. This approach minimizes contamination, maximizes scientific exploration
Mars presents a stark choice of diverging human futures. We can turn inward, pursuing ever more limited futures while we await whichever natural or manmade disaster will eradicate our species and life on Earth. Alternatively, we can choose to propel our biosphere further into the solar system, simultaneously protecting our home planet and providing a backup plan for the only life we know exists in the universe. Are the lives on Earth worth less than some hypothetical microbelurking under Martian rocks?
RC Line-wise Explanation
Paragraph 1
"There is a group in the space community who view the solar system not as an opportunity to expand human potential but as a nature preserve, forever the provenance of an elite group of scientists and their sanitary robotic probes."
Explanation: Some people in the space field believe we should preserve the solar system untouched, limiting it to scientific observation with clean, robotic missions.
"These planetary protection advocates [call] for avoiding “harmful contamination” of celestial bodies."
Explanation: These advocates want to prevent any contamination of space environments by Earth life or substances.
"Under this regime, NASA incurs great expense sterilizing robotic probes in order to prevent the contamination of entirely theoretical biospheres."
Explanation: NASA spends a lot of money cleaning its probes to protect hypothetical alien ecosystems that may not even exist.
Paragraph 2
"Transporting bacteria would matter if Mars were the vital world once imagined by astronomers who mistook optical illusions for canals."
Explanation: Sending bacteria to Mars might be a concern if it were a vibrant, life-filled planet, as early astronomers once thought.
"Nobody wants to expose Martians to measles, but sadly, robotic exploration reveals a bleak, rusted landscape, lacking oxygen and flooded with radiation ready to sterilize any Earthly microbes."
Explanation: Though we’d want to protect any Martian life, Mars appears to be lifeless and too harsh an environment for most Earth microbes to survive.
Paragraph 3
"Simple life might exist underground, or down at the bottom of a deep canyon, but it has been very hard to find with robots."
Explanation: While primitive life might be hiding in hard-to-reach places on Mars, robots have struggled to detect it.
"The upsides from human exploration and development of Mars clearly outweigh the welfare of purely speculative Martian fungi."
Explanation: The benefits of humans exploring and using Mars are more important than protecting possible Martian microbes we’ve never actually found.
Paragraph 4
"The other likely targets of human exploration, development, and settlement, our moon and the asteroids, exist in a desiccated, radiation-soaked realm of hard vacuum and extreme temperature variations that would kill nearly anything."
Explanation: The Moon and asteroids are so dry, irradiated, and inhospitable that almost no life could survive there.
"It’s also important to note that many international competitors will ignore the demands of these protection extremists in any case."
Explanation: Other countries may not follow the strict contamination rules advocated by some in the space community.
"For example, China recently sent a terrarium to the moon and germinated a plant seed—with, unsurprisingly, no protest from its own scientific community."
Explanation: China sent a small ecosystem to the Moon and grew a plant there, and their scientists didn’t object.
"In contrast, when it was recently revealed that a researcher had surreptitiously smuggled super-resilient microscopic tardigrades aboard the ill-fated Israeli Beresheet lunar probe, a firestorm was unleashed within the space community."
Explanation: However, when tardigrades were secretly sent to the Moon on another mission, it caused an uproar in the global space community.
Paragraph 5
"NASA’s previous human exploration efforts made no serious attempt at sterility, with little notice."
Explanation: Past NASA missions did not emphasize cleanliness and faced little criticism for it.
"As the Mars expert Robert Zubrin noted in the National Review, U.S. lunar landings did not leave the campsites cleaner than they found it."
Explanation: Expert Robert Zubrin pointed out that the Apollo missions left waste on the Moon.
"Apollo’s bacteria-infested litter included bags of feces."
Explanation: Astronauts even left bags of human waste behind.
"Forcing NASA’s proposed Mars exploration to do better, scrubbing everything and hauling out all the trash, would destroy NASA’s human exploration budget and encroach on the agency’s other directorates, too."
Explanation: Requiring future Mars missions to be fully sterile and carry back all waste would be too expensive and limit NASA's ability to fund other projects.
"Getting future astronauts off Mars is enough of a challenge, without trying to tote weeks of waste along as well."
Explanation: It’s already hard enough to bring astronauts home from Mars—carrying trash would make it even harder.
Paragraph 6
"A reasonable compromise is to continue on the course laid out by the U.S. government and the National Research Council, which proposed a system of zones on Mars, some for science only, some for habitation, and some for resource exploitation."
Explanation: A good middle-ground plan is to divide Mars into zones for research, living, and using resources, based on U.S. government recommendations.
"This approach minimizes contamination, maximizes scientific exploration . . ."
Explanation: This system allows scientific work while limiting the spread of contamination.
Paragraph 7
"Mars presents a stark choice of diverging human futures."
Explanation: Humanity faces an important decision regarding Mars.
"We can turn inward, pursuing ever more limited futures while we await whichever natural or manmade disaster will eradicate our species and life on Earth."
Explanation: One path is to avoid space exploration and risk extinction from future disasters on Earth.
"Alternatively, we can choose to propel our biosphere further into the solar system, simultaneously protecting our home planet and providing a backup plan for the only life we know exists in the universe."
Explanation: The other option is to expand human life into space, safeguarding Earth's biosphere and ensuring its survival elsewhere.
"Are the lives on Earth worth less than some hypothetical microbe lurking under Martian rocks?"
Explanation: The author argues that protecting Earth life should take priority over imaginary Martian organisms.
RC Paragraph Explanation
Paragraph 1 Summary
Some in the space community oppose human activity in space to prevent contamination, leading to costly sterilization efforts by NASA for robotic missions.
Paragraph 2 Summary
Concerns about contamination would make sense if Mars were teeming with life, but current evidence shows it is barren and hostile to Earth microbes.
Paragraph 3 Summary
Though basic Martian life might exist in hidden areas, the difficulty in finding it and the benefits of human exploration outweigh its hypothetical protection.
Paragraph 4 Summary
Other celestial bodies like the Moon and asteroids are too inhospitable for life, and not all nations follow strict contamination protocols, as shown by China and Israel.
Paragraph 5 Summary
Historical NASA missions did not prioritize sterility, and expecting future missions to clean up everything would cripple budgets and complicate Mars travel.
Paragraph 6 Summary
A compromise plan suggests dividing Mars into zones for science, habitation, and resource use, allowing both exploration and minimal contamination.
Paragraph 7 Summary
Humanity must choose between stagnating on Earth or expanding into the solar system to preserve life, with the author favoring the latter over protecting unproven Martian microbes.
RC Quick Table Summary
| Paragraph Number | Main Idea |
|---|---|
| Paragraph 1 | Some scientists want to keep space pristine, causing expensive sterilization. |
| Paragraph 2 | Mars is barren and hostile, making contamination concerns largely irrelevant. |
| Paragraph 3 | Human exploration outweighs the need to protect unconfirmed Martian life. |
| Paragraph 4 | The Moon and asteroids are uninhabitable, and many countries ignore contamination rules. |
| Paragraph 5 | Expecting full sterility for Mars missions is unrealistic and budget-breaking. |
| Paragraph 6 | A zoning strategy on Mars balances science, settlement, and resource use. |
| Paragraph 7 | Expanding into space is vital for humanity’s survival, even over Martian microbes. |
RC Questions
Ques 13. The author is unlikely to disagree with any of the following EXCEPT:
Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: This question asks us to identify the one statement that the author is likely to disagree with—despite agreeing with the other three. The passage presents a critical perspective on strict planetary protection protocols, especially when they are based on hypothetical life forms or overly cautious principles that hinder human exploration. The author clearly favors human settlement and development of extraterrestrial bodies over what he views as exaggerated concerns about contamination. He sees the current protectionist stance as not only unnecessary given the harshness of environments like Mars and the Moon, but also as an obstacle to scientific progress and survival of our species.
Option-wise Analysis
Option A: Incorrect. The author supports the zonal segregation proposal by the U.S. government and the National Research Council, calling it a reasonable compromise. This allows for both scientific study and human activity on Mars.
Option B: Incorrect. The author acknowledges NASA’s earlier missions made no serious attempts at sterility, citing examples like Apollo’s waste left behind. He does not view this as problematic and even suggests that imposing stricter standards now would be counterproductive.
Option C: Correct. This cautious view—delaying human activity until life is ruled out—contradicts the author’s core argument. He criticizes the planetary protection community for overemphasizing the potential for life, especially when evidence is weak or nonexistent, and for imposing financial and logistical burdens on missions like those to Mars.
Option D: Incorrect. The author consistently argues that extreme contamination-prevention measures are too costly, potentially derailing NASA’s human exploration plans.
Ques 14. The author mentions all of the following reasons to dismiss concerns about contaminating Mars EXCEPT:
Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: The passage challenges the concerns of planetary protection advocates who aim to prevent microbial contamination of celestial bodies like Mars. The author makes a case against the rigidity of such policies by highlighting practical limitations, the speculative nature of Martian life, and past precedents of contamination. The overall tone is skeptical of extreme sterilization measures, especially when based on hypothetical biospheres and when costs to human exploration are high. However, while the author presents multiple reasons to question or dismiss these concerns, one of the answer choices is not actually discussed or supported in the passage.
Option-wise Analysis
Option A: This is clearly supported by the passage, which describes Mars as a “bleak, rusted landscape… flooded with radiation,” suggesting that life is either nonexistent or deeply buried, making contamination concerns moot.
Option B: The author uses the example of China’s germination experiment on the Moon and the lack of internal protest to argue that other countries may not follow stringent contamination protocols, thereby weakening the case for strict international enforcement.
Option C: This choice mentions robotic probes having little environmental effect on celestial bodies like the Moon. However, the passage never claims that robotic probes have had little impact. Instead, it focuses on human missions, like Apollo, which left bacteria-infested litter including feces. The criticism here is aimed at the inconsistency in standards—not the environmental harmlessness of probes.
Option D: The passage does discuss how earlier missions (e.g., Apollo) did not enforce sterility and already introduced contamination, implying that the current strict approach is inconsistent and possibly unnecessary.
Ques 15. The author's overall tone in the first paragraph can be described as
Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: In the first paragraph, the author sets a distinctly critical tone toward a group within the space community—planetary protection advocates—who insist on avoiding "harmful contamination" of celestial bodies. These scientists are described as treating the solar system like a nature preserve, accessible only to elite researchers and their sterilized robotic probes. The author questions the logic and cost of sterilizing spacecraft when there's no confirmed life to protect, referring to "entirely theoretical biospheres" and emphasizing the financial burden placed on NASA. This framing reveals a clear skepticism about the need for such extreme measures, especially when aimed at planets like Mars, where the existence of life remains purely speculative.
Option-wise Analysis
Option A: Correct. The author is clearly skeptical of the planetary protection regime, suggesting that NASA’s sterilization efforts are excessive and unnecessary, particularly given the lack of confirmed life on Mars or elsewhere.
Option B: Incorrect. The word "equivocal" implies indecisiveness or lack of clarity, but the author’s stance is unambiguous—he sees these sterilization efforts as overblown.
Option C: Incorrect. The author is not indifferent to the elitism of scientists; he calls it out directly, describing the planetary protection advocates as an “elite group” preserving space for themselves.
Option D: Incorrect. The author disapproves of the cost involved in these sterilization processes. He presents the financial strain on NASA as a criticism, not an endorsement.
Ques 16. The contrasting reactions to the Chinese and Israeli "contaminations" of lunar space
Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: The passage describes two parallel events involving possible contamination of the Moon: • China intentionally germinated a plant seed in a lunar terrarium with no protest from its scientific community. • In contrast, the Israeli accidental release of microscopic tardigrades caused an uproar in the space community. The author uses this contrast to illustrate that reactions to space contamination differ across scientific communities and contexts. These responses are shaped more by internal cultural or institutional sensitivities than by the actual biological threat posed. The key idea is that the level of concern is not consistent or universally applied, suggesting varying national or community perspectives on planetary protection.
Option-wise Analysis
Option A: Incorrect. The author never compares the biological risks of plant vs. animal contamination. The issue is not about the severity of the contamination but the disparity in reactions to similar events.
Option B: Incorrect. While the Chinese approach received no protest, the author does not describe it as “reasonable.” The emphasis is on differing reactions, not a judgment about correctness.
Option C: Correct. This best captures the contrast in the passage: that different national scientific communities show different sensitivities to the same issue of space contamination.
Option D: Incorrect. The author does not suggest global political bias or unfair treatment of one country over another. The focus is on scientific community reactions, not geopolitics or bias.
