Altruism, according to the passage, is a behavior pattern characterized by

sacrifice - the individual performing it gains nothing, only benefits others.

With examples, the professor challenges the assumption that altruism is
"abound", conveyed by the reading passage.
According to the professor, one recent study about the meerkat brought new
insights about into the assumption that these animals are utterly altruistic.
The study showed evidence that the sentinel eats before standing guard that is, it doesn't go without food, sacrificing itself for the being of the herd,
as the passage suggest. Also, because the sentinel is the first to see the
possible predator, it is the first to have the opportunity to scape. The other
animals are actually in more danger than the sentinel. When the guard
emits the signal of danger, the action that follows is likely to attract the
predator's attention, therefore leaving the animals on the spotlight to be
preys.
The example about human beings given by the professor also contradicts
the reading passage. There might be an essentially extrinsic motivation in
the action of donating an organ to someone who needs it. The donator will
definitely benefit from the appreciation that he or she is going to receive
from other human beings. So, the action could be beneficial for the donator
as well and could be performed solely with it in mind.
To sum up, the lecture contradicts greatly the reading passage. In some
situations, altruism may not be the main motivation both for animals and
humans.

According to the passage, the appearance of professors in television, which

is becoming increasingly common, is something beneficial for the professor
themselves, as well as for the universities and for the public. The lecture
greatly challenges this claim.
The passage argues that the reputations of TV professors are enhanced
because they are seen as authorities in their fields by a wider audience.
Conversely, according to the lecturer, by appearing on TV, the professor's
reputation may actually be harmed. Peers might perceive him or her as not
being a serious scholar, but rather someone who only wants to entertain
people, not educate them. As result, the professor might not be invited to
take part in some meetings or events, and could also not be granted money
for research.
The other point that the lecture conveys is that professors lose a lot a time
by appearing on TV. They have to figure out what they're going to say,
reahearse it and maybe travel to appear on TV. The time he spends doing
this is subtracted from the time the professor has to carry out research,

teach or advise students. So, the universities and the students are not
benefiting from these appearances.
Last but not least, the lecturer mentions that, contrary to the belief of the
passage, not even the public is benefiting. TV stations are solely interested
in the professor's academic title. The information that he ends up being
broadcast is not in-depth information and doesn't differ much from the kind
of information that a reporter (who has done the homework) would give.

Because of the above reasons, it is questionable whether appearing on TV

has really anything of beneficial for professor, for their universities and for
the general public.

According to the reading passage, the painting "Portrait of an Elderly

Woman in a White Bonnet" could not have been painted by Rembrant. Three
problems support this claim: the way the woman in the portrait is dressed,
the disposition of light and shadow in the painting and the wood panel made
of glued pieces of wood on its back. These problems are in contradiction
with what we know about Rembrandt's mastery and style.

Presenting findings from a new study, the lecturer challenges what is

presented in the reading passage and therefore affirms that "Portrait of an
Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet" is a Rembrant work.

First, according to the lecturer, analisyes of the pigments of the painting

using X-rays have shown the luxurious fur collar that the servant woman is
wearing was actually added on top of the original painting, 100 years later,
so that the woman would look more aristocratic and this, therefore, would
increase the value of the painting. This solves the apparent "inconsistensy"
of the way the servant is dressed in the painting.

Second, the contradiction found in the fact the woman's face is illuminated
by the dark full collar she is wearing is solved if we take into account the
finding that, originally, the woman was wearing a white collar that
illuminated her face. So, in Rembrant, the use of light and shadow was
realistic; it was the changes in the painting that introduced the "error".

Finally, the glued wood panel was actually added to enlarge the painting and
make it more valuable. Also, analyses of the original pieces of wood show

that they belong to the same tree from which another panel for a Rembrant
painting was made.

According to the reading passage, there are two main types of tests used in
secondary education: one type is the objective test (multiple choice, fill in
the blanks, true-or-false, etc.), and the other is the subjetive test, in which
students are required to write essays about a certain topic.
The author of the reading takes a stand in favor of the latter type of
assessment for three reasons. First, in the passage, essays are said to test
the capacity of analysis and therefore a higher level of understanding,
whereas objetive tests merely assess the students capacity to memorize
information. Subjective tests are, consequently, more aligned with the type
of tasks students will confront themselves in real life. Second, essays also
stimulate the development of writing skills, which is important for all
subjects, at all levels. Finally, the passage says that essay tests take less
time to be prepared than objetive ones and this is of course beneficial for
busy teachers.
In the lecture, the professor starts by claiming that he has nothing against
essay writing, but then presents two drawbacks of subjective tests and
some benefits of objective ones, challeging the conception presented in the
reading passage. According the him, that is nothing wrong with memorizing
things actually, we do need to memorize basic facts and information. Also,
assessing someone through his writing could me misleading since good
writers might end up having good grades even though they have poor
knowledge on the subject they are writing about. The lecturer acknowledges
that objetive tests are easier to construct, but points out that essays, on the
other hand, are much more difficult to grade. Besides being more time
consuming, the grading of subjective tests, to be fair, requires the teacher
to go through them at the same time, which is not always convinient.
Objetive tests are a lot easier to grade - it take less time and could even be
done by a machine.
The professor concludes his explanation by saying that, for some situations,
a combination of both methods of assessments is more effective than the
use of one of them alone. Both types have their places in secondary schools.

The reading passage takes a strong stand in favor of vivisection, i.e. the use
of animals in medical research. The author acknowledges that it is natural to
be concerned about how animals are treated in such experiments, but says
that it is the reduction of human suffering that should worry us more.
According to the passage, animal suffering could be kept to a minimum,
using anesthesia and maintaining animals healthy, in a clean and
comfortable space. But at the heart of the authors argument is the claim
that there is no good replacement for vivisection. The other available
techniques are not as effective and, besides, it is immoral to risk human
lives in an experiment that could be carried out with non-humans.
In the lecture, the professor strongly opposes vivisection and conveys
arguments to support her opinion that contradict the claims of the reading
passage. According to her, the discovery of new drugs is possible without
animal testing, as proves the example of findings of aspirin and also of a
drug used to treating malaria. Also, sometimes new drugs would never have
been used if they were limited to animal testing. The morphine, for example,
reduces pain in humans, but stimulates it in cats. The professor disagrees
with the idea that there are not good substitutes by saying that medicines
could be tested directly in human tissues cultivated in labs. There are also
computer simulations and other alternatives.
Finally, the professor says that animals are not treated in as humanly as
possible in medical experiments. She has already been to many labs and
witnessed animals being abused and facing terrible diseases, in
environments with toxic chemicals.

The professor concludes by saying that vivisection, no matter the benefits it

may bring, is immoral because animals obviously have not consented to
take part.