IELTSwithJurabek

PASSAGE 2

Read the text and answer questions 14-26

EGYPT'S ANCIENT BOAT-BUILDERS

Archaeological discoveries on Egypt's Red Sea coast indicate that the region's ancient inhabitants were a skilled seafaring people.

A. The scenes carved into a wall of an Egyptian temple dating from the 15th century BC tell of a remarkable sea voyage from a mysterious land known as Punt, or "Land of God". They show a fleet of ships bearing exotic cargo, navigating through high-crested waves on a journey. The exact meaning of these detailed carvings has divided Egyptologists ever since they were discovered in the mid-19th century. "Some people have argued that Punt was not on the sea, or a fictitious place altogether," says Oxford University Egyptologist John Baines. However, a series of remarkable discoveries on a desolate stretch of Egypt's Red Sea coast has settled the debate. "These finds remove all doubt that you reach Punt by sea," Baines says. "The Egyptians must have had considerable seagoing experience."

B. The archaeologists behind these discoveries are Kathryn Bard of Boston University, USA, and Rodolfo Fattovich of Orientale University, Italy. From 2002 they spent several weeks each year examining a dried-up lagoon known in Egypt as Mersa Gawasis, and the coastal cliffs nearby. They were searching for signs of a harbour that might have sheltered merchant ships like those depicted in the wall carvings. Finally, in December 2004, Bard was clearing what she thought was the back wall of a rock shelter when she put her hand through the sand into an open space, and uncovered a hemispherical cave about 5 meters across and 2 meters high. The cave's entrance was carved into an exact rectangle and was clearly not a natural formation. Inside, the archaeologists found shattered storage jars, broken boxes made from cedar planks, and five grinding stones. A pottery fragment inscribed with the name of Amenemhat III, a pharaoh who ruled Egypt around 1800 BC, helped the team pinpoint the cave's age.

C. Not long afterwards, Bard and Fattovich came across a larger cave, reinforced with old wooden timbers and stone anchors, the first conclusive evidence of large-scale Egyptian seafaring ever discovered. Over the next few years, they uncovered the hidden remnants of an ancient boat-building and seafaring community. Many of the artefacts found were full of holes - the work of tiny marine animals known as shipworms. In addition to eight caves, Bard and Fattovich found remains of five mud-brick ramps that might have been used to ease ships into the water. One cave contained hundreds of meters of rope, expertly coiled and stacked.

D. Material connecting Mersa Gawasis to Punt accumulated both inside and outside the caves. A few hundred meters from the cliffs lie piles of crumbled stone and conch shells - most probably the remains of altars. Among these are stones carved with inscriptions that specifically mention missions to Punt. As if that were not enough, among the remnants found outside one cave were two planks marked with directions for assembling a ship. One of them bore an inscription still partly legible after 3,800 years: Year 8 under his majesty the king of Upper and Lower Egypt given life forever ... wonderful things of Punt.

E. While the Mersa Gawasis artefacts have answered some questions, they have raised others. For instance, how did the expeditions to Punt actually work, and how did the Egyptians construct vessels that could make a round-trip voyage of over 3,000 kilometers? Cheryl Ward, a maritime archaeologist at Coastal Carolina University in South Carolina, USA, has gone some way to answering these questions. She spent three years building a full-scale reconstruction of a ship that would have docked in the lagoon of Mersa Gawasis. Ward has determined that unlike modern vessels, the Egyptian ship was essentially one giant hull. The Egyptian ships were also unique in that they were held together with fittings that needed no metal fasteners, and could be taken apart and put back together again. "From the very beginning, the Egyptians were building boats that could be disassembled, and that makes them different from anyone else," Ward says.

F. For all the skill and craftsmanship evident in the Mersa Gawasis caves, ancient Egypt's ocean voyages were most likely an exception to the usual modes of trade, born out of a necessity to obtain precious materials, such as incense and aromatic resins. For most of Egypt's history these goods had moved along established routes across the eastern desert and through modern-day Sudan. But around the time Mersa Gawasis came into use, it seems a hostile new kingdom to the south cut Egypt off from its supply of exotic materials. "If they could have gone overland, it would have been much easier than bringing timbers from Lebanon, building ships on the upper Nile, taking them apart and carrying them across the desert," Bard says. "They were not stupid - no one wants to do things the hard way. But geopolitically, they had no other choice." Fattovich suggests that there were probably only 15 to 20 expeditions over some 400 years, about one every two decades. After that, Mersa Gawasis fell out of use, probably because either there was no longer enough water in the lagoon to float ships, or overland links improved, or alternative sites were found. The last sailors to use the lagoon sealed up their equipment and shelters behind mud bricks and sand to await expeditions that never came.

PASSAGE 3

Read the text and answer questions 27-40

THE COMMUNICATION OF SCIENCE

Science plays an increasingly significant role in people's lives, making the communication by journalists in the popular media of scientific developments more important than ever. Yet such communication is fraught with challenges that can easily distort discussions and lead to unnecessary confusion.

Some problems stem from the esoteric nature of current research and the associated difficulty of coming up with sufficiently faithful terminology. Abstraction and complexity are not signs that a given scientific direction is wrong, but are instead a tribute to the success of human ingenuity in meeting the challenges that nature presents. They can, however, make communication more difficult.

But many of the biggest challenges for scientific reporting arise because in areas of evolving research, scientists tend to be specialists, and often only partly realise the significance of any particular advance or development. Since that partial understanding applies to most of the scientific developments that directly affect people's lives, such as cancer research and diet studies, learning how to overcome it is critical to stimulating more informed scientific debate among the broader public.

Ambiguous word choices are the source of some misunderstandings. Scientists often employ common terminology, to which they then assign a specific meaning that is impossible to fathom without a precise definition. Take Einstein's famous theory of relativity. The term "relativity" is intrinsically misleading: many interpret it to mean that everything is relative, yet the physical phenomena measured are not relative. Even Einstein admitted that the term was probably misleading.

But not all communication problems stem solely from poor word choices. Some are inherent in the complex nature of much of modern science. Science sometimes transcends this limitation: chemists were able to detail the precise chemical processes involved in the destruction of the ozone layer, making the evidence that chlorofluorocarbon gases were destroying the ozone layer successfully conveyed to the public.

How journalists report scientific developments on vital issues that are less well understood is more complicated. Global warming patterns are a case in point. Balanced reporting usually helps public understanding, but a real problem in the global warming debate was that the press suggested some scientists believed it was legitimate and some did not, even long after the bulk of the scientific community had recognized the seriousness of the problem.

A better understanding by the general public of the mathematical significance of results would help to clarify many scientific discussions. Statistical analysis can show whether particular results are significant or could occur simply by chance. In a Harvard debate over gender-specific scientific ability, opposing sides used the same evidence because the data showed gender differences, but no statistically significant differences in inherent scientific ability.

There are steps we can take to improve public understanding of scientific developments. The first would be to inculcate greater understanding and acceptance of indirect scientific evidence not directly observable by human scientists. Information from an unmanned space mission is no less legitimate than information from one in which people are on board.

Second, we might need different standards for evaluating science with urgent policy implications as opposed to research with a purely theoretical value. Third, it would be better if scientists were more prepared to discuss the mathematical significance of their results, and if the public did not treat maths as quite so scary: statistics give us the tools to evaluate new developments fully.

But fourth, and most important, people have to recognise that science can be complex. If we accept only straightforward stories, the description will necessarily be distorted. When advances are subtle or complicated, scientists should be willing to give proper explanations, and the public should be more patient about the truth. Most developments reflect work in progress, so the story is complex because no one yet knows the big picture. Although the more involved story might not have the same immediate appeal, the truth in the end will always be far more interesting.