Social Classes 　　 It is hard to get any agreement on the precise meaning of the term “social class”. In everyday life, people tend to have a different approach to those they consider their equals from that which they assume with people they consider higher or lower than themselves in the social scale. The criteria we use to “place” a new acquaintance, however, are a complex mixture of factors. Dress, way of speaking, area of residence in a given city or province, education and manners all play a part. 　　In ancient civilizations, the Sumerian, for example, which flourished in the lower Euphrates valley from 5000 to 2000 B. C., social differences were based on birth, status or rank, rather than on wealth. Four main classes were recognized. These were the rulers, the priestly administrators, the freemen （such as craftsmen, merchants or farmers） and the slaves. 　　In Greece, after the sixth century B.C., there was a growing conflict between the peasants and the landed aristocrats（贵族）, and a gradual decrease in the power of the aristocracy when a kind of “middle class” of traders and skilled workers grew up. The population of Athens, for example, was divided into three main classes which were politically and legally distinct. About one-third of the total were slaves, who did not count politically at all, a fact often forgotten by those who praise Athens as the nursery of democracy. The next main group consisted of resident foreigners, the “metics”, who were freemen, though they too were allowed no share in political life. The third group was the powerful body of “citizens”, who were themselves divided into sub-classes. 　　In ancient Rome, too, a similar struggle between the plebs, or working people, and the landed families was a recurrent feature of social life. 　　The medieval feudal system, which flourished in Europe from the ninth to the thirteenth centuries, gave rise to a comparatively simple system based on birth. Under the king there were two main classes—lords and “vassals”, the latter with many subdivisions. The vassal owed the lord fidelity（忠诚）, obedience and aid, especially in the form of military service. The lord in return owed his vassal protection and an assured livelihood. 　　In the later Middle Ages, however, the development of a money economy and the growth of cities and trade led to the rise of class, the “burghers” or city merchants and mayors. These were the predecessors（前身）of the modern middle classes. Gradually high office and occupation assumed importance in determining social position, as it became more and more possible for a person born to one station in life to more to another. This change affected towns more than the country areas, where remnants of feudalism lasted much longer. 　　With the break-up of the feudal economy, the increasing division of labour, and the growing power of the town burghers, the commercial and professional middle class became more and more important in Europe, and the older privileged class, the landed aristocracy, began to lose some of its power. 　　In the eighteenth-century one of the first modern economists, Adam Smith, thought that the “whole annual produce of the land and labour of every country” provided revenue to “three different orders of people: those who live by rent, those who live by wages, and those who live by profit”. Each successive stage of the industrial revolution, however, made the social structure more complicated. 　　Many intermediate groups grew up during the nineteenth-century between the upper middle class and the working class. There were small-scale industrialists as well as large ones, small shopkeepers and tradesmen, officials and salaried employees, skilled and un-skilled workers, and professional men such as doctors and teachers. Farmers and peasants continued in all countries as independent groups. 　　During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the possession of wealth inevitably affected a person’s social position. Intelligent industrialists with initiative made fortunes by their working-class parents. But they lacked the social training of the upper class, who despised them as the “new rich”. 　　They often sent their sons and daughters to special schools to acquire social training. Here their children mixed with the children of the upper classes, were accepted by them, and very often found marriage partners from among them. In the same way, a thrifty（节俭的）, hardworking labourer, though not clever himself, might save for his son enough to pay for an extended secondary school education in the hope that they would move into a “white-collar” occupation, carrying with it a higher salary and a move up in the social scale. 　　The tendency to move down in social class is less obvious, for a claim to an aristocratic birth, especially in Europe, has always carried a certain distinction, and people have made tremendous efforts to obtain for their children the kind of opportunities they had for themselves. In the twentieth century the increased taxation of higher incomes, the growth of the social service development of educational opportunity have considerably altered the social outlook. The upper classes no longer are the sole, or even the main possessors of wealth, power and education, though inherited social positions still carries considerable prestige. Many people today are hostile towards class distinctions and privileges and hope to achieve a classless society. The trouble is that as one inequality is removed, another tends to take its place, and the best that has so far been attempted is a society in which distinctions are elastic（可变的）and in which every member has fair opportunities for making the best of his abilities. Decide whether the following statements are true（T）or false（F） according to the information given in the passage. 1. The division of “social class” involves a large number of factors.

Social Classes 　　 It is hard to get any agreement on the precise meaning of the term “social class”. In everyday life, people tend to have a different approach to those they consider their equals from that which they assume with people they consider higher or lower than themselves in the social scale. The criteria we use to “place” a new acquaintance, however, are a complex mixture of factors. Dress, way of speaking, area of residence in a given city or province, education and manners all play a part. 　　In ancient civilizations, the Sumerian, for example, which flourished in the lower Euphrates valley from 5000 to 2000 B. C., social differences were based on birth, status or rank, rather than on wealth. Four main classes were recognized. These were the rulers, the priestly administrators, the freemen （such as craftsmen, merchants or farmers） and the slaves. 　　In Greece, after the sixth century B.C., there was a growing conflict between the peasants and the landed aristocrats（贵族）, and a gradual decrease in the power of the aristocracy when a kind of “middle class” of traders and skilled workers grew up. The population of Athens, for example, was divided into three main classes which were politically and legally distinct. About one-third of the total were slaves, who did not count politically at all, a fact often forgotten by those who praise Athens as the nursery of democracy. The next main group consisted of resident foreigners, the “metics”, who were freemen, though they too were allowed no share in political life. The third group was the powerful body of “citizens”, who were themselves divided into sub-classes. 　　In ancient Rome, too, a similar struggle between the plebs, or working people, and the landed families was a recurrent feature of social life. 　　The medieval feudal system, which flourished in Europe from the ninth to the thirteenth centuries, gave rise to a comparatively simple system based on birth. Under the king there were two main classes—lords and “vassals”, the latter with many subdivisions. The vassal owed the lord fidelity（忠诚）, obedience and aid, especially in the form of military service. The lord in return owed his vassal protection and an assured livelihood. 　　In the later Middle Ages, however, the development of a money economy and the growth of cities and trade led to the rise of class, the “burghers” or city merchants and mayors. These were the predecessors（前身）of the modern middle classes. Gradually high office and occupation assumed importance in determining social position, as it became more and more possible for a person born to one station in life to more to another. This change affected towns more than the country areas, where remnants of feudalism lasted much longer. 　　With the break-up of the feudal economy, the increasing division of labour, and the growing power of the town burghers, the commercial and professional middle class became more and more important in Europe, and the older privileged class, the landed aristocracy, began to lose some of its power. 　　In the eighteenth-century one of the first modern economists, Adam Smith, thought that the “whole annual produce of the land and labour of every country” provided revenue to “three different orders of people: those who live by rent, those who live by wages, and those who live by profit”. Each successive stage of the industrial revolution, however, made the social structure more complicated. 　　Many intermediate groups grew up during the nineteenth-century between the upper middle class and the working class. There were small-scale industrialists as well as large ones, small shopkeepers and tradesmen, officials and salaried employees, skilled and un-skilled workers, and professional men such as doctors and teachers. Farmers and peasants continued in all countries as independent groups. 　　During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the possession of wealth inevitably affected a person’s social position. Intelligent industrialists with initiative made fortunes by their working-class parents. But they lacked the social training of the upper class, who despised them as the “new rich”. 　　They often sent their sons and daughters to special schools to acquire social training. Here their children mixed with the children of the upper classes, were accepted by them, and very often found marriage partners from among them. In the same way, a thrifty（节俭的）, hardworking labourer, though not clever himself, might save for his son enough to pay for an extended secondary school education in the hope that they would move into a “white-collar” occupation, carrying with it a higher salary and a move up in the social scale. 　　The tendency to move down in social class is less obvious, for a claim to an aristocratic birth, especially in Europe, has always carried a certain distinction, and people have made tremendous efforts to obtain for their children the kind of opportunities they had for themselves. In the twentieth century the increased taxation of higher incomes, the growth of the social service development of educational opportunity have considerably altered the social outlook. The upper classes no longer are the sole, or even the main possessors of wealth, power and education, though inherited social positions still carries considerable prestige. Many people today are hostile towards class distinctions and privileges and hope to achieve a classless society. The trouble is that as one inequality is removed, another tends to take its place, and the best that has so far been attempted is a society in which distinctions are elastic（可变的）and in which every member has fair opportunities for making the best of his abilities. Decide whether the following statements are true（T）or false（F） according to the information given in the passage. 2. Adam Smith’s eighteenth-century definition of class was invalidated by successive stages of the industrial revolution.

Social Classes 　　 It is hard to get any agreement on the precise meaning of the term “social class”. In everyday life, people tend to have a different approach to those they consider their equals from that which they assume with people they consider higher or lower than themselves in the social scale. The criteria we use to “place” a new acquaintance, however, are a complex mixture of factors. Dress, way of speaking, area of residence in a given city or province, education and manners all play a part. 　　In ancient civilizations, the Sumerian, for example, which flourished in the lower Euphrates valley from 5000 to 2000 B. C., social differences were based on birth, status or rank, rather than on wealth. Four main classes were recognized. These were the rulers, the priestly administrators, the freemen （such as craftsmen, merchants or farmers） and the slaves. 　　In Greece, after the sixth century B.C., there was a growing conflict between the peasants and the landed aristocrats（贵族）, and a gradual decrease in the power of the aristocracy when a kind of “middle class” of traders and skilled workers grew up. The population of Athens, for example, was divided into three main classes which were politically and legally distinct. About one-third of the total were slaves, who did not count politically at all, a fact often forgotten by those who praise Athens as the nursery of democracy. The next main group consisted of resident foreigners, the “metics”, who were freemen, though they too were allowed no share in political life. The third group was the powerful body of “citizens”, who were themselves divided into sub-classes. 　　In ancient Rome, too, a similar struggle between the plebs, or working people, and the landed families was a recurrent feature of social life. 　　The medieval feudal system, which flourished in Europe from the ninth to the thirteenth centuries, gave rise to a comparatively simple system based on birth. Under the king there were two main classes—lords and “vassals”, the latter with many subdivisions. The vassal owed the lord fidelity（忠诚）, obedience and aid, especially in the form of military service. The lord in return owed his vassal protection and an assured livelihood. 　　In the later Middle Ages, however, the development of a money economy and the growth of cities and trade led to the rise of class, the “burghers” or city merchants and mayors. These were the predecessors（前身）of the modern middle classes. Gradually high office and occupation assumed importance in determining social position, as it became more and more possible for a person born to one station in life to more to another. This change affected towns more than the country areas, where remnants of feudalism lasted much longer. 　　With the break-up of the feudal economy, the increasing division of labour, and the growing power of the town burghers, the commercial and professional middle class became more and more important in Europe, and the older privileged class, the landed aristocracy, began to lose some of its power. 　　In the eighteenth-century one of the first modern economists, Adam Smith, thought that the “whole annual produce of the land and labour of every country” provided revenue to “three different orders of people: those who live by rent, those who live by wages, and those who live by profit”. Each successive stage of the industrial revolution, however, made the social structure more complicated. 　　Many intermediate groups grew up during the nineteenth-century between the upper middle class and the working class. There were small-scale industrialists as well as large ones, small shopkeepers and tradesmen, officials and salaried employees, skilled and un-skilled workers, and professional men such as doctors and teachers. Farmers and peasants continued in all countries as independent groups. 　　During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the possession of wealth inevitably affected a person’s social position. Intelligent industrialists with initiative made fortunes by their working-class parents. But they lacked the social training of the upper class, who despised them as the “new rich”. 　　They often sent their sons and daughters to special schools to acquire social training. Here their children mixed with the children of the upper classes, were accepted by them, and very often found marriage partners from among them. In the same way, a thrifty（节俭的）, hardworking labourer, though not clever himself, might save for his son enough to pay for an extended secondary school education in the hope that they would move into a “white-collar” occupation, carrying with it a higher salary and a move up in the social scale. 　　The tendency to move down in social class is less obvious, for a claim to an aristocratic birth, especially in Europe, has always carried a certain distinction, and people have made tremendous efforts to obtain for their children the kind of opportunities they had for themselves. In the twentieth century the increased taxation of higher incomes, the growth of the social service development of educational opportunity have considerably altered the social outlook. The upper classes no longer are the sole, or even the main possessors of wealth, power and education, though inherited social positions still carries considerable prestige. Many people today are hostile towards class distinctions and privileges and hope to achieve a classless society. The trouble is that as one inequality is removed, another tends to take its place, and the best that has so far been attempted is a society in which distinctions are elastic（可变的）and in which every member has fair opportunities for making the best of his abilities. Decide whether the following statements are true（T）or false（F） according to the information given in the passage. 3. The writer regards doctors and teachers as independent groups outside society.

Social Classes 　　 It is hard to get any agreement on the precise meaning of the term “social class”. In everyday life, people tend to have a different approach to those they consider their equals from that which they assume with people they consider higher or lower than themselves in the social scale. The criteria we use to “place” a new acquaintance, however, are a complex mixture of factors. Dress, way of speaking, area of residence in a given city or province, education and manners all play a part. 　　In ancient civilizations, the Sumerian, for example, which flourished in the lower Euphrates valley from 5000 to 2000 B. C., social differences were based on birth, status or rank, rather than on wealth. Four main classes were recognized. These were the rulers, the priestly administrators, the freemen （such as craftsmen, merchants or farmers） and the slaves. 　　In Greece, after the sixth century B.C., there was a growing conflict between the peasants and the landed aristocrats（贵族）, and a gradual decrease in the power of the aristocracy when a kind of “middle class” of traders and skilled workers grew up. The population of Athens, for example, was divided into three main classes which were politically and legally distinct. About one-third of the total were slaves, who did not count politically at all, a fact often forgotten by those who praise Athens as the nursery of democracy. The next main group consisted of resident foreigners, the “metics”, who were freemen, though they too were allowed no share in political life. The third group was the powerful body of “citizens”, who were themselves divided into sub-classes. 　　In ancient Rome, too, a similar struggle between the plebs, or working people, and the landed families was a recurrent feature of social life. 　　The medieval feudal system, which flourished in Europe from the ninth to the thirteenth centuries, gave rise to a comparatively simple system based on birth. Under the king there were two main classes—lords and “vassals”, the latter with many subdivisions. The vassal owed the lord fidelity（忠诚）, obedience and aid, especially in the form of military service. The lord in return owed his vassal protection and an assured livelihood. 　　In the later Middle Ages, however, the development of a money economy and the growth of cities and trade led to the rise of class, the “burghers” or city merchants and mayors. These were the predecessors（前身）of the modern middle classes. Gradually high office and occupation assumed importance in determining social position, as it became more and more possible for a person born to one station in life to more to another. This change affected towns more than the country areas, where remnants of feudalism lasted much longer. 　　With the break-up of the feudal economy, the increasing division of labour, and the growing power of the town burghers, the commercial and professional middle class became more and more important in Europe, and the older privileged class, the landed aristocracy, began to lose some of its power. 　　In the eighteenth-century one of the first modern economists, Adam Smith, thought that the “whole annual produce of the land and labour of every country” provided revenue to “three different orders of people: those who live by rent, those who live by wages, and those who live by profit”. Each successive stage of the industrial revolution, however, made the social structure more complicated. 　　Many intermediate groups grew up during the nineteenth-century between the upper middle class and the working class. There were small-scale industrialists as well as large ones, small shopkeepers and tradesmen, officials and salaried employees, skilled and un-skilled workers, and professional men such as doctors and teachers. Farmers and peasants continued in all countries as independent groups. 　　During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the possession of wealth inevitably affected a person’s social position. Intelligent industrialists with initiative made fortunes by their working-class parents. But they lacked the social training of the upper class, who despised them as the “new rich”. 　　They often sent their sons and daughters to special schools to acquire social training. Here their children mixed with the children of the upper classes, were accepted by them, and very often found marriage partners from among them. In the same way, a thrifty（节俭的）, hardworking labourer, though not clever himself, might save for his son enough to pay for an extended secondary school education in the hope that they would move into a “white-collar” occupation, carrying with it a higher salary and a move up in the social scale. 　　The tendency to move down in social class is less obvious, for a claim to an aristocratic birth, especially in Europe, has always carried a certain distinction, and people have made tremendous efforts to obtain for their children the kind of opportunities they had for themselves. In the twentieth century the increased taxation of higher incomes, the growth of the social service development of educational opportunity have considerably altered the social outlook. The upper classes no longer are the sole, or even the main possessors of wealth, power and education, though inherited social positions still carries considerable prestige. Many people today are hostile towards class distinctions and privileges and hope to achieve a classless society. The trouble is that as one inequality is removed, another tends to take its place, and the best that has so far been attempted is a society in which distinctions are elastic（可变的）and in which every member has fair opportunities for making the best of his abilities. Decide whether the following statements are true（T）or false（F） according to the information given in the passage. 4. The “new rich” were often men of initiative and intelligence. And their children were accepted by the upper class because of their education.

Social Classes 　　 It is hard to get any agreement on the precise meaning of the term “social class”. In everyday life, people tend to have a different approach to those they consider their equals from that which they assume with people they consider higher or lower than themselves in the social scale. The criteria we use to “place” a new acquaintance, however, are a complex mixture of factors. Dress, way of speaking, area of residence in a given city or province, education and manners all play a part. 　　In ancient civilizations, the Sumerian, for example, which flourished in the lower Euphrates valley from 5000 to 2000 B. C., social differences were based on birth, status or rank, rather than on wealth. Four main classes were recognized. These were the rulers, the priestly administrators, the freemen （such as craftsmen, merchants or farmers） and the slaves. 　　In Greece, after the sixth century B.C., there was a growing conflict between the peasants and the landed aristocrats（贵族）, and a gradual decrease in the power of the aristocracy when a kind of “middle class” of traders and skilled workers grew up. The population of Athens, for example, was divided into three main classes which were politically and legally distinct. About one-third of the total were slaves, who did not count politically at all, a fact often forgotten by those who praise Athens as the nursery of democracy. The next main group consisted of resident foreigners, the “metics”, who were freemen, though they too were allowed no share in political life. The third group was the powerful body of “citizens”, who were themselves divided into sub-classes. 　　In ancient Rome, too, a similar struggle between the plebs, or working people, and the landed families was a recurrent feature of social life. 　　The medieval feudal system, which flourished in Europe from the ninth to the thirteenth centuries, gave rise to a comparatively simple system based on birth. Under the king there were two main classes—lords and “vassals”, the latter with many subdivisions. The vassal owed the lord fidelity（忠诚）, obedience and aid, especially in the form of military service. The lord in return owed his vassal protection and an assured livelihood. 　　In the later Middle Ages, however, the development of a money economy and the growth of cities and trade led to the rise of class, the “burghers” or city merchants and mayors. These were the predecessors（前身）of the modern middle classes. Gradually high office and occupation assumed importance in determining social position, as it became more and more possible for a person born to one station in life to more to another. This change affected towns more than the country areas, where remnants of feudalism lasted much longer. 　　With the break-up of the feudal economy, the increasing division of labour, and the growing power of the town burghers, the commercial and professional middle class became more and more important in Europe, and the older privileged class, the landed aristocracy, began to lose some of its power. 　　In the eighteenth-century one of the first modern economists, Adam Smith, thought that the “whole annual produce of the land and labour of every country” provided revenue to “three different orders of people: those who live by rent, those who live by wages, and those who live by profit”. Each successive stage of the industrial revolution, however, made the social structure more complicated. 　　Many intermediate groups grew up during the nineteenth-century between the upper middle class and the working class. There were small-scale industrialists as well as large ones, small shopkeepers and tradesmen, officials and salaried employees, skilled and un-skilled workers, and professional men such as doctors and teachers. Farmers and peasants continued in all countries as independent groups. 　　During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the possession of wealth inevitably affected a person’s social position. Intelligent industrialists with initiative made fortunes by their working-class parents. But they lacked the social training of the upper class, who despised them as the “new rich”. 　　They often sent their sons and daughters to special schools to acquire social training. Here their children mixed with the children of the upper classes, were accepted by them, and very often found marriage partners from among them. In the same way, a thrifty（节俭的）, hardworking labourer, though not clever himself, might save for his son enough to pay for an extended secondary school education in the hope that they would move into a “white-collar” occupation, carrying with it a higher salary and a move up in the social scale. 　　The tendency to move down in social class is less obvious, for a claim to an aristocratic birth, especially in Europe, has always carried a certain distinction, and people have made tremendous efforts to obtain for their children the kind of opportunities they had for themselves. In the twentieth century the increased taxation of higher incomes, the growth of the social service development of educational opportunity have considerably altered the social outlook. The upper classes no longer are the sole, or even the main possessors of wealth, power and education, though inherited social positions still carries considerable prestige. Many people today are hostile towards class distinctions and privileges and hope to achieve a classless society. The trouble is that as one inequality is removed, another tends to take its place, and the best that has so far been attempted is a society in which distinctions are elastic（可变的）and in which every member has fair opportunities for making the best of his abilities. Decide whether the following statements are true（T）or false（F） according to the information given in the passage. 5. The writer thinks that though a classless society has yet to be perfected, an attempt has been made to provide equal opportunity.

How to Avoid the Foolish Opinions To avoid the various foolish opinions to which mankind are prone, no superhuman genius is required. A few simple rules will keep you, not from all error, but from silly error. If the mater is one that can be settled by observation, make the observation yourself. Aristotle could have avoided the mistake of thinking that women have fewer teeth than men, by the simple device of asking Mrs. Aristotle to keep her mouth open while he counted. He did not do so because he thought he knew. Thinking that you know when in fact you don’t is a fatal mistake, to which we are all prone. I believe myself that hedgehogs eat balck beetles, because I have been told that they do; but if I were writing a book on the habits of hedgehogs, I should not commit myself until I had seen one enjoying this unappetizing diet. Aristotle, however, was less cautious. Ancient and medieval authors knew all about unicorns and salamanders; not one of them thought it necessary to avoid dogmatic statements about them because he had never seen one of them. Many matters, however are less easily brought to the test of experience. If, like most of mankind, you have passionate convictions on many such matter, there are ways in which you can make yourself aware of your own bias. If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants. A good way of riding yourself of certain kinds of dogmatism is to be come aware of opinions held in social circles different from your own. When I was young, I lived much outside my own country-in France, Germany, italy, and the United States. I found this very profitable in diminishing the intensity of insular prejudice. If you cannot travel, seek out people with whom you disagree, and read a newspaper belonging to a party that is not yours. If the people and the newspaper seem mad, perverse, and wicked, remind yourself that you seem so to them. In this opinion both parties may be right, but they cannot both be wrong. This reflection should generate a certain caution. For those who have enough psychological imagination, it is a good plan to imagine an argument with a person having a different bias. This has one advantage, and only one, as compared with actual conversation with opponents; this one advantage is that the method is not subject to the same limitations of time or space. Mahatma Gandhi deplores railways and steamboats and machinery; he would like to undo the whole of the industrial revolution. You may never have an opportunity of actually meeting any one who holds this opinion, because in Western countries most people take the advantage of modern technique for granted. But if you want to make sure that you are right in agreeing with the prevailing opinion, you will find it a good plan to test the arguments that occur to you by considering what Gandhi might say in refutation of them. I have sometimes been led actually to change my mind as a result of this kind of imaginary dialogue, and, short of this, I have frequently found myself growing less dogmatic and cocksure through realizing the possible reasonableness of a hypothetical opponent. Be very wary of opinions that flatter your self-esteem. Both men and women, nine times out of ten, are firmly convinced of the superior excellence of their own sex. There is abundant evidence on both sides. If you are a man, you can point out that most poets and mean of science are male; if you are a woman, you can retort that so are most criminals. The question is inherently insoluble, but self-esteem conceals this from most people. We are all, whatever part of the world we come from, persuaded that our own nation is superior to all other. Seeing that each nation has its characteristic merits and demerits, we adjust our standard of values so as to make out that the merits possessed by our nation are the rally important ones, while its demerits are comparatively trivial. Here, again, the rational man will admit that the question is one to which there is no demonstrably right answer. It is more difficult to deal with the self-esteem of man as man, because we cannot argue out the matter with some nonhuman mind. The only way I know of dealing with this general human conceit is to remind ourselves that man is a brief episode in the life of a small planet in a little corner of the universe, and that for aught we know, other parts of the cosmos may contain beings as superior to ourselves as we are to jellyfish. Decide whether the following statements are true（T）or false（F） according to the information given in the passage. 1.The author means to tell us several ways to keep us from errors of all conceivable forms.

How to Avoid the Foolish Opinions To avoid the various foolish opinions to which mankind are prone, no superhuman genius is required. A few simple rules will keep you, not from all error, but from silly error. If the mater is one that can be settled by observation, make the observation yourself. Aristotle could have avoided the mistake of thinking that women have fewer teeth than men, by the simple device of asking Mrs. Aristotle to keep her mouth open while he counted. He did not do so because he thought he knew. Thinking that you know when in fact you don’t is a fatal mistake, to which we are all prone. I believe myself that hedgehogs eat balck beetles, because I have been told that they do; but if I were writing a book on the habits of hedgehogs, I should not commit myself until I had seen one enjoying this unappetizing diet. Aristotle, however, was less cautious. Ancient and medieval authors knew all about unicorns and salamanders; not one of them thought it necessary to avoid dogmatic statements about them because he had never seen one of them. Many matters, however are less easily brought to the test of experience. If, like most of mankind, you have passionate convictions on many such matter, there are ways in which you can make yourself aware of your own bias. If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants. A good way of riding yourself of certain kinds of dogmatism is to be come aware of opinions held in social circles different from your own. When I was young, I lived much outside my own country-in France, Germany, italy, and the United States. I found this very profitable in diminishing the intensity of insular prejudice. If you cannot travel, seek out people with whom you disagree, and read a newspaper belonging to a party that is not yours. If the people and the newspaper seem mad, perverse, and wicked, remind yourself that you seem so to them. In this opinion both parties may be right, but they cannot both be wrong. This reflection should generate a certain caution. For those who have enough psychological imagination, it is a good plan to imagine an argument with a person having a different bias. This has one advantage, and only one, as compared with actual conversation with opponents; this one advantage is that the method is not subject to the same limitations of time or space. Mahatma Gandhi deplores railways and steamboats and machinery; he would like to undo the whole of the industrial revolution. You may never have an opportunity of actually meeting any one who holds this opinion, because in Western countries most people take the advantage of modern technique for granted. But if you want to make sure that you are right in agreeing with the prevailing opinion, you will find it a good plan to test the arguments that occur to you by considering what Gandhi might say in refutation of them. I have sometimes been led actually to change my mind as a result of this kind of imaginary dialogue, and, short of this, I have frequently found myself growing less dogmatic and cocksure through realizing the possible reasonableness of a hypothetical opponent. Be very wary of opinions that flatter your self-esteem. Both men and women, nine times out of ten, are firmly convinced of the superior excellence of their own sex. There is abundant evidence on both sides. If you are a man, you can point out that most poets and mean of science are male; if you are a woman, you can retort that so are most criminals. The question is inherently insoluble, but self-esteem conceals this from most people. We are all, whatever part of the world we come from, persuaded that our own nation is superior to all other. Seeing that each nation has its characteristic merits and demerits, we adjust our standard of values so as to make out that the merits possessed by our nation are the rally important ones, while its demerits are comparatively trivial. Here, again, the rational man will admit that the question is one to which there is no demonstrably right answer. It is more difficult to deal with the self-esteem of man as man, because we cannot argue out the matter with some nonhuman mind. The only way I know of dealing with this general human conceit is to remind ourselves that man is a brief episode in the life of a small planet in a little corner of the universe, and that for aught we know, other parts of the cosmos may contain beings as superior to ourselves as we are to jellyfish. Decide whether the following statements are true（T）or false（F） according to the information given in the passage. 2.The author refers to Aristotle to point out the mistake in judgment made by the philosopher.

How to Avoid the Foolish Opinions To avoid the various foolish opinions to which mankind are prone, no superhuman genius is required. A few simple rules will keep you, not from all error, but from silly error. If the mater is one that can be settled by observation, make the observation yourself. Aristotle could have avoided the mistake of thinking that women have fewer teeth than men, by the simple device of asking Mrs. Aristotle to keep her mouth open while he counted. He did not do so because he thought he knew. Thinking that you know when in fact you don’t is a fatal mistake, to which we are all prone. I believe myself that hedgehogs eat balck beetles, because I have been told that they do; but if I were writing a book on the habits of hedgehogs, I should not commit myself until I had seen one enjoying this unappetizing diet. Aristotle, however, was less cautious. Ancient and medieval authors knew all about unicorns and salamanders; not one of them thought it necessary to avoid dogmatic statements about them because he had never seen one of them. Many matters, however are less easily brought to the test of experience. If, like most of mankind, you have passionate convictions on many such matter, there are ways in which you can make yourself aware of your own bias. If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants. A good way of riding yourself of certain kinds of dogmatism is to be come aware of opinions held in social circles different from your own. When I was young, I lived much outside my own country-in France, Germany, italy, and the United States. I found this very profitable in diminishing the intensity of insular prejudice. If you cannot travel, seek out people with whom you disagree, and read a newspaper belonging to a party that is not yours. If the people and the newspaper seem mad, perverse, and wicked, remind yourself that you seem so to them. In this opinion both parties may be right, but they cannot both be wrong. This reflection should generate a certain caution. For those who have enough psychological imagination, it is a good plan to imagine an argument with a person having a different bias. This has one advantage, and only one, as compared with actual conversation with opponents; this one advantage is that the method is not subject to the same limitations of time or space. Mahatma Gandhi deplores railways and steamboats and machinery; he would like to undo the whole of the industrial revolution. You may never have an opportunity of actually meeting any one who holds this opinion, because in Western countries most people take the advantage of modern technique for granted. But if you want to make sure that you are right in agreeing with the prevailing opinion, you will find it a good plan to test the arguments that occur to you by considering what Gandhi might say in refutation of them. I have sometimes been led actually to change my mind as a result of this kind of imaginary dialogue, and, short of this, I have frequently found myself growing less dogmatic and cocksure through realizing the possible reasonableness of a hypothetical opponent. Be very wary of opinions that flatter your self-esteem. Both men and women, nine times out of ten, are firmly convinced of the superior excellence of their own sex. There is abundant evidence on both sides. If you are a man, you can point out that most poets and mean of science are male; if you are a woman, you can retort that so are most criminals. The question is inherently insoluble, but self-esteem conceals this from most people. We are all, whatever part of the world we come from, persuaded that our own nation is superior to all other. Seeing that each nation has its characteristic merits and demerits, we adjust our standard of values so as to make out that the merits possessed by our nation are the rally important ones, while its demerits are comparatively trivial. Here, again, the rational man will admit that the question is one to which there is no demonstrably right answer. It is more difficult to deal with the self-esteem of man as man, because we cannot argue out the matter with some nonhuman mind. The only way I know of dealing with this general human conceit is to remind ourselves that man is a brief episode in the life of a small planet in a little corner of the universe, and that for aught we know, other parts of the cosmos may contain beings as superior to ourselves as we are to jellyfish. Decide whether the following statements are true（T）or false（F） according to the information given in the passage. 3.According to the essay, when you are angry with one whose opinion differs from yours, you can hardly set him right in a convincing manner.

How to Avoid the Foolish Opinions To avoid the various foolish opinions to which mankind are prone, no superhuman genius is required. A few simple rules will keep you, not from all error, but from silly error. If the mater is one that can be settled by observation, make the observation yourself. Aristotle could have avoided the mistake of thinking that women have fewer teeth than men, by the simple device of asking Mrs. Aristotle to keep her mouth open while he counted. He did not do so because he thought he knew. Thinking that you know when in fact you don’t is a fatal mistake, to which we are all prone. I believe myself that hedgehogs eat balck beetles, because I have been told that they do; but if I were writing a book on the habits of hedgehogs, I should not commit myself until I had seen one enjoying this unappetizing diet. Aristotle, however, was less cautious. Ancient and medieval authors knew all about unicorns and salamanders; not one of them thought it necessary to avoid dogmatic statements about them because he had never seen one of them. Many matters, however are less easily brought to the test of experience. If, like most of mankind, you have passionate convictions on many such matter, there are ways in which you can make yourself aware of your own bias. If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants. A good way of riding yourself of certain kinds of dogmatism is to be come aware of opinions held in social circles different from your own. When I was young, I lived much outside my own country-in France, Germany, italy, and the United States. I found this very profitable in diminishing the intensity of insular prejudice. If you cannot travel, seek out people with whom you disagree, and read a newspaper belonging to a party that is not yours. If the people and the newspaper seem mad, perverse, and wicked, remind yourself that you seem so to them. In this opinion both parties may be right, but they cannot both be wrong. This reflection should generate a certain caution. For those who have enough psychological imagination, it is a good plan to imagine an argument with a person having a different bias. This has one advantage, and only one, as compared with actual conversation with opponents; this one advantage is that the method is not subject to the same limitations of time or space. Mahatma Gandhi deplores railways and steamboats and machinery; he would like to undo the whole of the industrial revolution. You may never have an opportunity of actually meeting any one who holds this opinion, because in Western countries most people take the advantage of modern technique for granted. But if you want to make sure that you are right in agreeing with the prevailing opinion, you will find it a good plan to test the arguments that occur to you by considering what Gandhi might say in refutation of them. I have sometimes been led actually to change my mind as a result of this kind of imaginary dialogue, and, short of this, I have frequently found myself growing less dogmatic and cocksure through realizing the possible reasonableness of a hypothetical opponent. Be very wary of opinions that flatter your self-esteem. Both men and women, nine times out of ten, are firmly convinced of the superior excellence of their own sex. There is abundant evidence on both sides. If you are a man, you can point out that most poets and mean of science are male; if you are a woman, you can retort that so are most criminals. The question is inherently insoluble, but self-esteem conceals this from most people. We are all, whatever part of the world we come from, persuaded that our own nation is superior to all other. Seeing that each nation has its characteristic merits and demerits, we adjust our standard of values so as to make out that the merits possessed by our nation are the rally important ones, while its demerits are comparatively trivial. Here, again, the rational man will admit that the question is one to which there is no demonstrably right answer. It is more difficult to deal with the self-esteem of man as man, because we cannot argue out the matter with some nonhuman mind. The only way I know of dealing with this general human conceit is to remind ourselves that man is a brief episode in the life of a small planet in a little corner of the universe, and that for aught we know, other parts of the cosmos may contain beings as superior to ourselves as we are to jellyfish. Decide whether the following statements are true（T）or false（F） according to the information given in the passage. 4.The author intends us to travel and read widely to enrich our knowledge.

How to Avoid the Foolish Opinions To avoid the various foolish opinions to which mankind are prone, no superhuman genius is required. A few simple rules will keep you, not from all error, but from silly error. If the mater is one that can be settled by observation, make the observation yourself. Aristotle could have avoided the mistake of thinking that women have fewer teeth than men, by the simple device of asking Mrs. Aristotle to keep her mouth open while he counted. He did not do so because he thought he knew. Thinking that you know when in fact you don’t is a fatal mistake, to which we are all prone. I believe myself that hedgehogs eat balck beetles, because I have been told that they do; but if I were writing a book on the habits of hedgehogs, I should not commit myself until I had seen one enjoying this unappetizing diet. Aristotle, however, was less cautious. Ancient and medieval authors knew all about unicorns and salamanders; not one of them thought it necessary to avoid dogmatic statements about them because he had never seen one of them. Many matters, however are less easily brought to the test of experience. If, like most of mankind, you have passionate convictions on many such matter, there are ways in which you can make yourself aware of your own bias. If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants. A good way of riding yourself of certain kinds of dogmatism is to be come aware of opinions held in social circles different from your own. When I was young, I lived much outside my own country-in France, Germany, italy, and the United States. I found this very profitable in diminishing the intensity of insular prejudice. If you cannot travel, seek out people with whom you disagree, and read a newspaper belonging to a party that is not yours. If the people and the newspaper seem mad, perverse, and wicked, remind yourself that you seem so to them. In this opinion both parties may be right, but they cannot both be wrong. This reflection should generate a certain caution. For those who have enough psychological imagination, it is a good plan to imagine an argument with a person having a different bias. This has one advantage, and only one, as compared with actual conversation with opponents; this one advantage is that the method is not subject to the same limitations of time or space. Mahatma Gandhi deplores railways and steamboats and machinery; he would like to undo the whole of the industrial revolution. You may never have an opportunity of actually meeting any one who holds this opinion, because in Western countries most people take the advantage of modern technique for granted. But if you want to make sure that you are right in agreeing with the prevailing opinion, you will find it a good plan to test the arguments that occur to you by considering what Gandhi might say in refutation of them. I have sometimes been led actually to change my mind as a result of this kind of imaginary dialogue, and, short of this, I have frequently found myself growing less dogmatic and cocksure through realizing the possible reasonableness of a hypothetical opponent. Be very wary of opinions that flatter your self-esteem. Both men and women, nine times out of ten, are firmly convinced of the superior excellence of their own sex. There is abundant evidence on both sides. If you are a man, you can point out that most poets and mean of science are male; if you are a woman, you can retort that so are most criminals. The question is inherently insoluble, but self-esteem conceals this from most people. We are all, whatever part of the world we come from, persuaded that our own nation is superior to all other. Seeing that each nation has its characteristic merits and demerits, we adjust our standard of values so as to make out that the merits possessed by our nation are the rally important ones, while its demerits are comparatively trivial. Here, again, the rational man will admit that the question is one to which there is no demonstrably right answer. It is more difficult to deal with the self-esteem of man as man, because we cannot argue out the matter with some nonhuman mind. The only way I know of dealing with this general human conceit is to remind ourselves that man is a brief episode in the life of a small planet in a little corner of the universe, and that for aught we know, other parts of the cosmos may contain beings as superior to ourselves as we are to jellyfish. Decide whether the following statements are true（T）or false（F） according to the information given in the passage. 5.According to the author, an argument in imagination is better than an actual one because the former enjoys a higher degree of freedom.