Premise: Thin-film solar power The modernist box that won this years Solar Decathlon, a contest for solar-powered houses sponsored by Americas Department of Energy, had solar panels of the conventional, crystalline sort on its roof. But the walls were covered in solar cells made with thin coatings of silicon and other materials in the place of expensive slices of crystal. Thin film, as this technology is known, is still less popular than crystalline cells and its move to the mainstream has been a year or two away for a decade. But its time may have come at last. There are many exotic ideas involving thin film, from the solar shingles recently unveiled by Dow, a big chemical company, a roofs worth costs $27,000, to experimental prototypes of power-generating clothes, roads and cars. However, most thin film comes in the form of panels that resemble crystalline ones. They are roughly half as efficient, meaning that a panel must be twice as big to generate the same amount of power, but a third cheaper, watt for watt. So in places where there is no shortage of space, they are the natural option. Thin-film cells are also more versatile, since they can be mounted on a variety of materials including flexible plastics and fabrics. Like all solar cells, they are becoming more efficient: the decathletes of Team Germany, who designed the winning house, bragged that its north facade was covered in panels that could convert even indirect sunlight into electricity. Over the past year or so, thanks to a crash in demand tied to the recession and falling subsidies in big markets, the price of crystalline panels has fallen by 30-40%, undermining thin films relative advantage. Nonetheless, thin films share of the market has continued to rise: it is now almost half, compared with just 10% in 2004. The biggest force in the industry is a firm called First Solar, based in Arizona, a sunny American state. Like that of virtually all alternative-energy firms, its share price has suffered in the recession. But it has First Solar looks likely to continue to grow. Last month it signed a memorandum of understanding with China to install two gigawatts worth of panels in Inner Mongolia-a place with plenty of space. That is enough to power 3 million homes. Installation is due to begin next year and finish in 2019. That and other projects should consume all its output for several years to come. First Solars rivals are much smaller. But technological advances may yet catapult one to the fore, says Steve Milunovich, an analyst at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. First Solar makes its cells from a chemical called cadmium telluride. But firms such as Nanosolar, which is building factories in California and Germany, believe that a combination of copper, indium, gallium and selenium known as CIGS will prove cheaper to produce on a mass scale. Researchers at the University of California, meanwhile, hold out great hopes for cells made of organic chemicals. For the moment, however, the cheapest form of solar power is none of these, but the less glamorous solar-thermal power, which involves heating water with sunlight to make steam. Utilities are also keen to use lenses to increase the amount of sunlight hitting solar panels-a technique known as concentrating solar power. They still need subsidies or a high price on carbon emissions to make investments in any sort of solar power profitable. But the gap between solar and conventional power sources is becoming, well, thinner.

Hypothesis: First solar is not yet listed on the S&P 500


Hypothesis: When space is not a problem, its probably better to use crystalline films.


Hypothesis: Team Germanys house won because of its ability to turn indirect sunlight into electricity.


Hypothesis: The price reduction of crystalline films has prevented thin films from gaining market share.


Hypothesis: At this years Solar Decathlon, thin film covered the roof of the modernist box.


Hypothesis: In the last three years, First Solars share price has increased more than Standard & Poors clean-energy index.


Premise: This Marvellous Invention. Of all mankinds manifold creations, language must take pride of place. Other inventions the wheel, agriculture, sliced bread may have transformed our material existence, but the advent of language is what made us human. Compared to language, all other inventions pale in significance, since everything we have ever achieved depends on language and originates from it. Without language, we could never have embarked on our ascent to unparalleled power over all other animals, and even over nature itself. But language is foremost not just because it came first. In its own right it is a tool of extraordinary sophistication, yet based on an idea of ingenious simplicity: this marvellous invention of composing out of twenty-five or thirty sounds that infinite variety of expressions which, whilst having in themselves no likeness to what is in our mind, allow us to disclose to others its whole secret, and to make known to those who cannot penetrate it all that we imagine, and all the various stirrings of our soul. This was how, in 1660, the renowned French grammarians of the Port-Royal abbey near Versailles distilled the essence of language, and no one since has celebrated more eloquently the magnitude of its achievement. Even so, there is just one flaw in all these hymns of praise, for the homage to languages unique accomplishment conceals a simple yet critical incongruity. Language is mankinds greatest invention except, of course, that it was never invented. This apparent paradox is at the core of our fascination with language, and it holds many of its secrets. Language often seems so skillfully drafted that one can hardly imagine it as anything other than the perfected handiwork of a master craftsman. How else could this instrument make so much out of barely three dozen measly morsels of sound? In themselves, these configurations of mouth p, f, b, v, t, d, k, g, sh, a, e and so on amount to nothing more than a few haphazard spits and splutters, random noises with no meaning, no ability to express, no power to explain. But run them through the cogs and wheels of the language machine, let it arrange them in some very special orders, and there is nothing that these meaningless streams of air cannot do: from sighing the interminable boredom of existence to unravelling the fundamental order of the universe. The most extraordinary thing about language, however, is that one doesnt have to be a genius to set its wheels in motion. The language machine allows just about everybody from pre-modern foragers in the subtropical savannah, to post-modern philosophers in the suburban sprawl to tie these meaningless sounds together into an infinite variety of subtle senses, and all apparently without the slightest exertion. Yet it is precisely this deceptive ease which makes language a victim of its own success, since in everyday life its triumphs are usually taken for granted. The wheels of language run so smoothly that one rarely bothers to stop and think about all the resourcefulness and expertise that must have gone into making it tick. Language conceals art. Often, it is only the estrangement of foreign tongues, with their many exotic and outlandish features, that brings home the wonder of languages design. One of the showiest stunts that some languages can pull off is an ability to build up words of breath-breaking length, and thus express in one word what English takes a whole sentence to say. The Turkish word ? to take one example, means nothing less than you are one of those whom we cant turn into a town-dweller. (In case you were wondering, this monstrosity really is one word, not merely many different words squashed together most of its components cannot even stand up on their own. ) And if that sounds like some one-off freak, then consider Sumerian, the language spoken on the banks of the Euphrates some 5,000 years ago by the people who invented writing and thus enabled the documentation of history. A Sumerian word like munintumaa (when he had made it suitable for her) might seem rather trim compared to the Turkish colossus above. What is so impressive about it, however, is not its lengthiness but rather the reverse the thrifty compactness of its construction. The word is made up of different slots, each corresponding to a particular portion of meaning. This sleek design allows single sounds to convey useful information, and in fact even the absence of a sound has been enlisted to express something specific. If you were to ask which bit in the Sumerian word corresponds to the pronoun it in the English translation when he had made it suitable for her, then the answer would have to be nothing. Mind you, a very particular kind of nothing: the nothing that stands in the empty slot in the middle. The technology is so fine-tuned then that even a non-sound, when carefully placed in a particular position, has been invested with a specific function. Who could possibly have come up with such a nifty contraption?

Hypothesis: A complex idea can be explained more clearly in a sentence than in a single word.


Hypothesis: Human beings might have achieved their present position without language.


Hypothesis: The Sumerians were responsible for starting the recording of events.


Hypothesis: The Port-Royal grammarians did justice to the nature of language.


Premise: This Marvelous Invention Of all mankinds manifold creations, language must take pride of place. Other inventions the wheel, agriculture, sliced bread may have transformed our material existence, but the advent of language is what made us human. Compared to language, all other inventions pale in significance, since everything we have ever achieved depends on language and originates from it. Without language, we could never have embarked on our ascent to unparalleled power over all other animals, and even over nature itself. But language is foremost not just because it came first. In its own right it is a tool of extraordinary sophistication, yet based on an idea of ingenious simplicity: this marvellous invention of composing out of twenty-five or thirty sounds that infinite variety of expressions which, whilst having in themselves no likeness to what is in our mind, allow us to disclose to others its whole secret, and to make known to those who cannot penetrate it all that we imagine, and all the various stirrings of our soul. This was how, in 1660, the renowned French grammarians of the Port-Royal abbey near Versailles distilled the essence of language, and no one since has celebrated more eloquently the magnitude of its achievement. Even so, there is just one flaw in all these hymns of praise, for the homage to languages unique accomplishment conceals a simple yet critical incongruity. Language is mankinds greatest invention except, of course, that it was never invented. This apparent paradox is at the core of our fascination with language, and it holds many of its secrets. Language often seems so skillfully drafted that one can hardly imagine it as anything other than the perfected handiwork of a master craftsman. How else could this instrument make so much out of barely three dozen measly morsels of sound? In themselves, these configurations of mouth p, f, b, v, t, d, k, g, s, h, a, e and so on amount to nothing more than a few haphazard spits and splutters, random noises with no meaning, no ability to express, no power to explain. But run them through the cogs and wheels of the language machine, let it arrange them in some very special orders, and there is nothing that these meaningless streams of air cannot do: from sighing the interminable boredom of existence to unravelling the fundamental order of the universe. The most extraordinary thing about language, however, is that one doesnt have to be a genius to set its wheels in motion. The language machine allows just about everybody from pre-modern foragers in the subtropical savannah, to post-modern philosophers in the suburban sprawl to tie these meaningless sounds together into an infinite variety of subtle senses, and all apparently without the slightest exertion. Yet it is precisely this deceptive ease which makes language a victim of its own success, since in everyday life its triumphs are usually taken for granted. The wheels of language run so smoothly that one rarely bothers to stop and think about all the resourcefulness and expertise that must have gone into making it tick. Language conceals art. Often, it is only the estrangement of foreign tongues, with their many exotic and outlandish features, that brings home the wonder of languages design. One of the showiest stunts that some languages can pull off is an ability to build up words of breath-breaking length, and thus express in one word what English takes a whole sentence to say. The Turkish word fehirliliftiremediklerimizdensiniz, to take one example, means nothing less than you are one of those whom we cant turn into a town-dweller. (In case you were wondering, this monstrosity really is one word, not merely many different words squashed together most of its components cannot even stand up on their own. ) And if that sounds like some one-off freak, then consider Sumerian, the language spoken on the banks of the Euphrates some 5,000 years ago by the people who invented writing and thus enabled the documentation of history. A Sumerian word like munintumaa (when he had made it suitable for her) might seem rather trim compared to the Turkish colossus above. What is so impressive about it, however, is not its lengthiness but rather the reverse the thrifty compactness of its construction. The word is made up of different slots, each corresponding to a particular portion of meaning. This sleek design allows single sounds to convey useful information, and in fact even the absence of a sound has been enlisted to express something specific. If you were to ask which bit in the Sumerian word corresponds to the pronoun it in the English translation when he had made it suitable for her, then the answer would have to be nothing. Mind you, a very particular kind of nothing: the nothing that stands in the empty slot in the middle. The technology is so fine-tuned then that even a non-sound, when carefully placed in a particular position, has been invested with a specific function. Who could possibly have come up with such a nifty contraption?


Premise: This passage aims to outline the debate regarding the benefit of protecting wilderness land, where mankind is unrepresented, versus using such lands for the good of mankind. Commentators suggest that mans use of such land, whether to build houses or reap the resources that can be extracted, diminishes the value of such spaces. Opposing this line of thought is the view that to corner off such spaces prevents human progress and limits the possibilities of expansion. In accordance with this line of thought, to limit the use of such resources increases their monetary value, placing those with limited resources at a disadvantage.

Hypothesis: Preservation of wilderness land prevents human progress.


Hypothesis: Expansion may be limited by the preservation of wilderness land.


Hypothesis: Wilderness land provides future generations with natural substances


Hypothesis: By preventing the use of limited resources, their value increases.


Premise: This passage examines the view that the punishment of criminals is the underlying aim of the criminal justice system, rather than rehabilitation. When looking at the criminal justice system in the United Kingdom, statistics suggest that those convicted of crimes are more likely to re-offend if given a prison sentence than any other sentence, such as community orders or mandatory alcohol or drug dependency support. In addition, those with dependency problems are more likely to further develop their dependency in prison. However, many sectors of society continue to see non-custodial sentences as the easy way out for offender. In this way, the underlying aim of the criminal justice system continues to be attempting to punish rather than rehabilitate.

Hypothesis: Community orders continue to be an easy way out for offenders.


Hypothesis: Prisoners are 3x more likely to offend than those serving community orders.


Hypothesis: Illegal substances are easier to acquire in prison.


Hypothesis: Prisoners are more likely to offend than those serving community orders.


Premise: This passage is based on the popularity of websites. It compares figures published by Rankings Today, a publishing group which collects and analysis information on the popularity of products. Rankings Today note that such figures are based on the annual income generated by such websites and the number of visitors to websites, also known as website traffic. As a result of these figures, we can see that the two most popular types of website are price comparison sites and social networking sites. It is estimated that over three billion pounds in advertising is generated by such websites every year. As a result of this information, companies are better informed as to where they should advertise to reach the largest possible audience.

Hypothesis: Rankings Today is a company which collects and provides information on social networking websites only.


Hypothesis: Rankings Today is a company which provides information on how to achieve the greatest profit.


Hypothesis: Rankings Today is a company which collects and provides information on products


Premise: This passage outlines common ways in which companies aim to resolve disputes between their workers. There are two main approaches to dispute resolution within a company. The first of these is the evaluation approach. This method encourages a meeting between the disputing parties to identify the issues between them. A neutral third party, often a team leader, listens to their issues and aims to find a reasonable compromise to impose upon the parties. There are often sanctions outlined for any breach of this compromise. The second way in which companies often resolve disputes between workers is through the facilitative approach. This method encourages open communication, identifying common ground and encourages the parties to the dispute themselves to find a solution, rather than a third party. A benefit of this approach is that the parties get to discuss their issues openly and provides an opportunity for each party to apologise and move forward.

Hypothesis: The evaluation approach to problem solving is a method that companies use to assess an employees contribution.


Hypothesis: The evaluation approach to problem solving is a method by which companies analyse potential new business partners.


Hypothesis: The evaluation approach to problem solving requires a neutral third party to find a reasonable compromise.


Hypothesis: The evaluation approach to problem solving allows the disputing parties to find a solution themselves,


Premise: This passage outlines the debate regarding the usefulness of social networking websites as a marketing tool. One side of this debate suggests that such websites allow companies to reach the widest target audience possible, and as such, are a powerful advertising tool. In addition to this social networking sites, such as facebook, provide information such as age, occupation, relationship status, location and often personal likes. In this way, such websites provide companies with a large amount of information, allowing companies to target their product at their ideal with greater ease and efficiency. On the other side of the debate, critics suggest that such websites encourage the publication of personal information on a never before seen level. In this way, companies are in a position to take advantage of previously private information.

Hypothesis: Social networking sites provide a powerful advertising tool


Hypothesis: Social networking sites encourage the publication of private information.


Hypothesis: Social networking is used as marketing tool.


Hypothesis: Social networking sites place users in a vulnerable position.