Question:medium

Passage:

Archaeology is a source of history, not just a humble auxiliary discipline. Archaeological data are historical documents in their own right, not mere illustrations to written texts. Just as much as any other historian, an archaeologist studies and tries to reconstitute the process that has created the human world in which we live and us ourselves in so far as we are each creatures of our age and social environment. Archaeological data are all changes in the material world resulting from human action, or more succinctly, the fossilized results of human behavior. The sum total of these constitutes what may be called the archaeological record. This record exhibits certain peculiarities and deficiencies, the consequences of which produce a rather superficial contrast between archaeological history and the more familiar kind based upon written records.

Not all human behavior fossilizes. The words I utter and you hear as vibrations in the air are certainly human changes in the material world and may be of great historical significance. Yet they leave no sort of trace in the archaeological records unless they are captured by a dictaphone or written down by a clerk. The movement of troops on the battlefield may "change the course of history", but this is equally ephemeral from the archaeologist's standpoint. What is perhaps worse is most organic materials are perishable. Everything made of wood, hide, wool, linen, grass, hair and similar materials will decay and vanish in dust in a few years or centuries save under very exceptional conditions. In a relatively brief period the archaeological record is reduced to mere scraps of stone, bone, glass, metal, and earthenware. Still, modern archaeology, by applying appropriate techniques and comparative methods, aided by a few lucky finds from peat bogs, deserts and frozen soils, is able to fill up a good deal of the gap.

The purpose of archaeology is to learn more about past societies and the development of the human race. Over 99% of the development of humanity has occurred within prehistoric cultures, which did not make use of writing, thereby not leaving written records of themselves that can be studied today. Without such written sources, the only way to learn about prehistoric societies is to use archaeology. Many important developments in human history occurred during prehistory, such as the evolution of humanity during the Paleolithic period, when the hominins developed from the australopithecines in Africa and eventually into modern Homo sapiens. Archaeology also sheds light on many of humanity's technological advances, for instance the ability to use fire, the development of stone tools, the discovery of metallurgy, the beginnings of religion, and the creation of agriculture. Without archaeology, we would know little or nothing about the use of material culture by humanity that pre-dates writing.

However, it is not only prehistoric, pre-literate cultures that can be studied using archaeology but historic, literate cultures as well, through the sub-discipline of historical archaeology. For many literate cultures, such as Ancient Greece and Mesopotamia, their surviving records are often incomplete and biased to some extent. In many societies, literacy was restricted to the elite classes, such as the clergy or the bureaucracy of court or temple. The literacy even of aristocrats has sometimes been restricted to deeds and contracts. The interests and world-view of elites are often quite different from the lives and interests of the populace. Writings that were produced by people more representative of the general population were unlikely to find their way into libraries and be preserved there for posterity. Thus, written records tend to reflect the biases, assumptions, cultural values and possibly deceptions of a limited range of individuals, usually a small fraction of the larger population. Hence, written records cannot be trusted as a sole source. The material record may be closer to a fair representation of society, though it is subject to its own biases, such as sampling bias and differential preservation.
Question:
Which of the following is not an example of an organic material?

Show Hint

Ask which of the five items was never part of a living organism; that one is the odd one out.
Updated On: Jul 20, 2026
  • Stone
  • Wool
  • Grass
  • Hair
  • Bone
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

A useful test for "organic" is simple: was the material ever part of a living plant or animal? Apply that test to each option. Wool comes from an animal's coat, grass is a living plant, hair grows from skin, and bone is living tissue in an animal's skeleton, all four pass the test and are organic. Stone fails the test completely; it is a mineral formed by geological processes and was never alive. This lines up with how the passage itself uses these words: wool, grass, and hair appear in the list of materials that "will decay and vanish in dust" because they are organic and perishable, while stone appears later as one of the durable, inorganic remnants (alongside glass, metal, and earthenware) that survive when the organic material around them has rotted away. Bone is grouped with the durable survivors in that same sentence, but that is about how long it lasts archaeologically, not about what it is made of; biologically, bone still originates from a living creature and is organic. So among the five choices, only stone has no biological origin whatsoever. The answer is option (a), Stone.
Was this answer helpful?
0

Questions Asked in IBSAT exam

Although cynics may like to see the government’s policy for women in terms of the party’s internal power struggles, it will nevertheless be churlish to deny that it represents a pioneering effort aimed at bringing about sweeping social reforms. In its language, scope and strategies, the policy document displays a degree of understanding of women’s needs that is uncommon in government pronouncements. This is due in large part to the participatory process that marked its formulation, seeking the active involvement right from the start of women’s groups, academic institutions and non-government organizations with grass roots experience.
The result is not just a lofty declaration of principles but a blueprint for a practical programme of action. The policy delineates a series of concrete measures to accord women a decision-making role in the political domain and greater control over their economic status. Of especially far-reaching impact are the devolution of control of economic infrastructure to women, notably at the gram panchayat level, and the amendments proposed in the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 to give women coparcenary rights.
 An enlightened aspect of the policy is its recognition that actual change in the status of women cannot be brought about by the mere enactment of socially progressive legislation. Accordingly, it focuses on reorienting development programmes and sensitizing administrations to address specific situations as, for instance, the growing number of households headed by women, which is a consequence of rural-urban migration. The proposal to create an equal-opportunity police force and give women greater control of police stations is an acknowledgement of the biases and callousness displayed by the generally all-male lawenforcement authorities in cases of dowry and domestic violence. While the mere enunciation of such a policy has the salutary effect of sensitizing the administration as a whole, it does not make the task of its implementation any easier. 
This is because the changes it envisages in the political and economic status of women strike at the root of power structures in society and the basis of man woman relationships. There is also the danger that reservation for women in public life, while necessary for their greater visibility, could lapse into tokenism or become a tool in the hands of vote seeking politicians. Much will depend on the dissemination of the policy and the ability of elected representatives and government agencies to reorder their priorities.
  • IBSAT
  • Reading Comprehension
View Solution
Generally, people experience stress in their day-to-day lives, but more than thirty million Americans suffer from something more intense than that. Anxiety disorders are the second-most-common mental health problem in the country, and they can be paralyzing. Sometimes, day-to-day stress and anxiety are hard to tell apart, but the easiest way to distinguish them is that stress is brought on by actual events, and then dissipates, whereas anxiety is a more pervasive worry, that often attaches itself to specific areas of your life, like your relationship, job or health, says psychologist Terry Mooney.
This anxiety does not dissipate, and in fact, it can increase to the level where it begins to change your behavior. That’s when it’s characterized as an anxiety disorder. Anxiety can keep you safe, helping you recognize danger, and cope with it, says Mooney. But if you begin to see danger lurking around every corner, or worry over and over again about the same events, then you might be dealing with something more substantial, like an anxiety disorder. 
People with anxiety disorders often begin to avoid activities or circumstances that make them anxious, said John Forsyth, associate professor of Psychology at the State University of New York at Albany and director of the Anxiety Disorders Research Programme at the university. People may stop driving, or stop going to parties. They may stop travelling or even avoid leaving the house. It’s this curtailing of activities that causes the suffering, Forsyth said, making you feel that ‘life is shrinking around you.’
 Anxiety disorders come in a variety of forms and manifest themselves in different ways. Generalized anxiety disorder is characterized by ongoing worry about everyday tasks, even when there is no clear reason to worry. People with social anxiety disorder experience intense worry over social interactions, and often feel judged by people or worry that they will embarrass themselves. Post-traumatic stress disorder, which is characterized by people re-living a frightening event over and over again, is also considered an anxiety disorder. Obsessive-compulsive disorder is when people take on obsessive rituals that help them maintain the illusion of control. Often repetitive in nature, obsessive compulsive rituals can include cleaning, checking and rechecking something, counting or endlessly reviewing conversations in their mind. Treatment is available for anxiety disorders. People can use a variety of approaches, including therapy, medication and exercise.
  • IBSAT
  • Reading Comprehension
View Solution
I am the family face; flesh perishes. I live on, projecting trait and trace through time to times anon, and leaping from place to place over oblivion.
So wrote Thomas Hardy in his poem, Heredity, describing direct descent of life from one generation to the next. Indeed, the poem reflects the DNA in our genome. Dr.Drew Endy of MIT quoted this when he described how people at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) bypass nature’s constraint of direct descent. Scientists there have used chemistry and biochemistry to produce the first synthetic genome in the laboratory. They chemically synthesized many fragments of the DNA, encoding the 582,970-units-long genome of a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium. Next, they assembled these fragments in perfect order to generate the genome of the bacterium.
The DNA sequence of the synthetic one was confirmed to be identical to the natural one. While the DNA pieces were synthesized chemically, the stitching together was done using the biochemical machinery of a host cell. About 100 pieces of the genome, each 5000-7000 units long in DNA sequence, were first joined to produce 25 sub-assemblies, each about 24000 base pairs long. These were then introduced into the bacterium E. coli to produce sufficient DNA for the next steps. Next, they repeated the procedure to generate large fragments comprising l/4th of the whole genome of M.genitalium.
Now, they used the clever trick of exploiting the process called homologous recombination. This is a basic essential process in every cell, which physically rearranges the two strands of DN The JCVI researchers inserted the synthesized DNA fragments into yeast and utilized its homologous recombination ability to generate the whole 580,000 long genome of M.genitalium in one step. 
This is clearly a landmark work that leads into the brave new world of synthesizing life itself in the laboratory. It was hardly 200 years ago when Friedrich Wohler synthesized urea, an organic molecule, in the chemical laboratory, thus throwing out the notion of ‘vital forces’ involved in the components of living organisms. What is the next step, making life itself in the lab, bypassing nature? With single cell organisms like M.genitalium, it might not be far away. It is now possible in the lab to do so, by inserting the genome into a ‘host’ cell and asking the latter to make the bacterium of your choice. If only we find a way to insert the bacterial genome into this proto-cell, and somehow trigger it to make the bacterium itself! We would have chemically created life in the la This is not a pipedream; JCVI scientists are already on the job, and my bet is they will do it within a few years. 
This surely raises ethical questions, a matter that JCVI is keenly aware of and is already engaged in with ethicists. Even their present work on M.genitalium was done with prior approval of ethical experts. But then, today it is M.genitalium, tomorrow it could be a more advanced, multi-cellular organism, and that could flummox even the ethicist. Assisted reproduction, which is the other side of the coin and truly a recently initiated technology, has become ethically and morally acceptable. Cloning of Dolly, the sheep, has not raised any outrage, but cloning a human certainly does.
  • IBSAT
  • Reading Comprehension
View Solution