Information Technology Project Management 5th Edition Marchewka Test Bank

Information Technology Project Management 5th
Edition Marchewka Test Bank download
https://testbankfan.com/product/information-technology-project-
management-5th-edition-marchewka-test-bank/
Visit testbankfan.com today to download the complete set of
test bank or solution manual

Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to
download, or explore more at testbankfan.com
Information Technology Project Management 5th Edition
Marchewka Solutions Manual
management-5th-edition-marchewka-solutions-manual/
Marchewka Test Bank
management-4th-edition-marchewka-test-bank/
Marchewka Solutions Manual
management-4th-edition-marchewka-solutions-manual/
Western Experience 10th Edition Chambers Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/western-experience-10th-edition-
chambers-test-bank/

Information Technology Auditing 4th Edition Hall Solutions
Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/information-technology-auditing-4th-
edition-hall-solutions-manual/
Managerial Accounting 12th Edition Warren Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/managerial-accounting-12th-edition-
warren-test-bank/
Human Relations Strategies for Success 5th Edition
Lamberton Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/human-relations-strategies-for-
success-5th-edition-lamberton-solutions-manual/
Administrative Professional Procedures and Skills Canadian
3rd Edition Fulton Calkins Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/administrative-professional-
procedures-and-skills-canadian-3rd-edition-fulton-calkins-solutions-
manual/
Auditing and Assurance Services A Systematic Approach 11th
Edition Messier Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/auditing-and-assurance-services-a-
systematic-approach-11th-edition-messier-test-bank/

Essentials of Marketing 13th Edition Perreault Solutions
Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/essentials-of-marketing-13th-edition-
perreault-solutions-manual/

Information Technology Project Management 5e - Marchewka
Chapter 6: The Work Breakdown Structure and Project
Estimation
True/False
1. Project network diagrams provide valuable information about the logical
sequence and dependencies among the various activities and tasks so that a
completion date or deadline can be determined.
a. True
b. False
Ans: True
Difficulty: Easy
Ref: DEVELOPING THE PROJECT SCHEDULE
2. Predecessor activities are activities that can be worked on at the same time as
another activity.
a. True
b. False
Ans: False
Difficulty: Easy
3. Predecessor activities are activities that must be completed before another activity
can be started.
a. True
b. False
Ans: True
Difficulty: Easy
4. A parallel activity is a task that can be worked on at the same time as another
activity.
a. True
b. False
Ans: True
Difficulty: Easy

5. Parallel activities can shorten the project schedule, but can have an impact on
project resources if a resource is assigned to two tasks at the same time.
a. True
b. False
Ans: True
Difficulty: Easy
6. The critical path is the shortest path in the project network and also is the longest
time in which the project can be completed.
a. True
b. False
Ans: False
Difficulty: Easy
7. The critical path is the longest path in the project network and also is the shortest
time in which the project can be completed.
a. True
b. False
Ans: True
Difficulty: Easy
8. Identifying the critical path is important because any change in the duration of the
activities or tasks on the critical path will affect the project’s schedule.
a. True
b. False
Ans: True
Difficulty: Easy
9. The critical path has zero slack (or float)
a. True
b. False
Ans: True
Difficulty: Easy

10. Identifying the critical path is important because a project can only have one
critical path and it never changes.
a. True
b. False
Ans: False
Difficulty: Easy
11. PERT was developed in the 1950s to create a visual representation of scheduled
activities, their logical sequence, and interrelationships using a statistical
probability distribution.
a. True
b. False
Ans: True
Difficulty: Easy
12. Installing a server before loading the operating system is an example of a finish-
to-start relationship.
a. True
b. False
Ans: True
Difficulty: Easy
13. Start-to-Start and Finish-to-Finish relationships allow activities to be worked on
in parallel.
a. True
b. False
Ans: True
Difficulty: Easy
14. A start-to-finish activity is the most common relationship between two activities.
a. True

b. False
Ans: False
Difficulty: Easy
15. The project budget is determined by the project schedule, the cost of the resources
assigned to each of the tasks, and by any other direct or indirect costs and
reserves.
a. True
b. False
Ans: True
Difficulty: Easy
Ref: DEVELOPING THE PROJECT BUDGET
16. The direct costs of using a resource is the only type of cost that should be
considered when developing the project budget.
a. True
b. False
Ans: False
Difficulty: Easy
17. Sunk costs include such things as rent, utilities, insurance, and other
administrative costs.
a. True
b. False
Ans: False
Difficulty: Easy
18. A reserve can provide a cushion when unexpected situations arise.
a. True
b. False
Ans: True
Difficulty: Easy

19. An over allocated resource would arise when Mary is assigned to work on two
tasks scheduled at the same time.
a. True
b. False
Ans: True
Difficulty: Easy
20. Once the project schedule and budget are accepted by the client or sponsor, the
project plan becomes the baseline plan that will be used as a benchmark to track
the project’s actual progress.
a. True
b. False
Ans: True
Difficulty: Easy
Ref: THE BASELINE PLAN
21. A kick-off meeting is often held to develop the project plan.
a. True
b. False
Ans: False
Difficulty: Easy
Ref: THE KICK-OFF MEETING
22. The kick-off meeting brings closure to the planning phase of the project.
a. True
b. False
Ans: True
Difficulty: Easy
Ref: THE KICK-OFF MEETING

Multiple Choice
1. Which of the following statements are true?:
a) Milestones are logical units of work.
b) Baseline plans are approved project plans.
c) All tasks are linear, i.e. have to be completed in a particular sequence.
d) The kick-off meeting typically begins the planning phase of a project.
e) MOV are readily changed through change control processes.
Ans: B
Difficulty: Easy
Ref: INTRODUCTION
2. The tool most closely associated with activity bars across a horizontal time axis
is:
a) Project Network Diagrams
b) Gantt Charts
c) PERT
d) Activity on the Node
e) Critical Path Analysis
Ans: B
Difficulty: Easy
3. _____ is considered the most useful and widely used project management tool.
b) Gantt Charts
c) PERT
Ans: B
Difficulty: Easy
4. _____ can be useful for tracking and monitoring project progress because because
they are simple and straightforward.

b) Gantt Charts
c) PERT
Ans: B
Difficulty: Easy
5. _____ provide valuable information about the logical sequence and dependencies
among the various activities and tasks:
a) Work Breakdown Schedule
b) Gantt Charts
c) PART
d) Project Network Diagrams
Ans: D
Difficulty: Easy
6. _____ can help manage the Critical Path by providing information about which
activities can be delayed without affecting the deadline target date.
a) Work Breakdown Schedule
b) Gantt Charts
c) PART
d) Project Network Diagrams
Ans: D
Difficulty: Easy
7. The amount of time an activity can be delayed before affecting the project
deadline is _____
a) slack
b) crash
c) fast-track
d) diversion
e) delay in any activity will delay the project

Ans: A
Difficulty: Easy
8. The technique used to find the sequence of tasks with zero slack (or float) is most
closely associated with:
b) Gantt Charts
c) PERT
Ans: E
Difficulty: Easy
9. The Critical Path is:
a) the longest path in the project network.
b) the shortest path in the project network.
c) the longest time in which the project can be completed.
d) the interrelationships of project activities.
e) the most important identified tasks within the project.
Ans: A
Difficulty: Easy
10. Adding resources to an activity to shorten the critical path is called_____
a) slacking.
b) floating.
c) diverting.
d) crashing.
e) fast tracking
Ans: D
Difficulty: Easy

11. Completing activities in parallel is called_____
a) slacking.
b) floating.
c) diverting.
d) crashing.
e) fast tracking
Ans: E
Difficulty: Easy
12. The technique used to help manage the Polaris submarine project and which bases
activity estimates on probabilistic estimates of three scenarios is most closely
associated with:
b) Gantt Charts
c) PERT
Ans: C
Difficulty: Easy
13. Starting the next task before the first task is complete is _____
a) lead
b) lag
c) negative lead
d) slack
e) float
Ans: A
Difficulty: Easy
14. An activity being analyzed under PERT was judged to most likely have a duration
of 40 days. When considering the time it would take to complete the activity if
every relevant factor went well, it was estimated to be able to be doable in 20
days and even under the worst case imaginable, the task would be take 50 days.
The estimates PERT duration of that activity is:

a) 36.67 days
b) 38.33 days
c) 37.50 days
d) 28.33 days
e) 32.67 days
Ans: B
Difficulty: Medium
15. Based upon the following diagram and activity durations, the Critical Path is:
A 2
B 5
C 4
D 3
E 1
F 4
G 3
H 5
I 5
J 1
a) A+B+C+F+H+J
b) A+B+D+F+H+J
c) A+B+D+G+H+J

d) A+B+D+G+I+J
e) A+B+E+G+I+J
Ans: B
Difficulty: Medium
16. _____ is well suited for developing simulations where the project manager can
conduct sensitivity analysis for schedule planning and risk analysis.
b) Gantt Charts
c) PERT
Ans: C
Difficulty: Easy
17. Under the Precedence Diagramming Method, the situation which occurs when a
relationship between two tasks that can or must start at the same time is called:
a) Finish-To-Start (FS)
b) Start-To-Start (SS)
c) Finish-To-Finish (FF)
d) Start-To-Finish (SF)
e) none of these
Ans: B
Difficulty: Easy
18. Under the Precedence Diagramming Method, the most common relationship
between two activities which implies a logical sequence is called:
e) none of these
Ans: A

Difficulty: Easy
19. Installing the operating system on a computer before loading any application
packages is an example of:
e) none of these
Ans: A
Difficulty: Medium
20. Under the Precedence Diagramming Method, the situation which occurs when
two activities can start at different times, have different durations, but are planned
to be competed at the same time is called:
e) none of these
Ans: C
Difficulty: Medium
21. Under the Precedence Diagramming Method, the situation which occurs when
task A cannot end until task B starts is called:
e) none of these
Ans: D
Difficulty: Medium

Other documents randomly have
different content

great many Americans who have not, as yet, succumbed to English
bourgeois theology and who do not believe, for instance, that Isaac
Newton is of greater philosophic importance than Kant, this
Encyclopædia will be of far more value to an Englishman than to an
American.
The first distortion which will impress one who seeks information
in the Britannica is to be found in the treatment of English empirical
philosophers—that is, of John Locke, Isaac Newton, George
Berkeley, Shaftesbury, Francis Hutcheson, Joseph Butler, Mandeville,
Hume, Adam Smith and David Hartley. Locke receives fifteen
columns of detailed exposition, with inset headings. “He was,” we
are told, “typically English in his reverence for facts” and “a signal
example in the Anglo-Saxon world of the love of attainable truth for
the sake of truth and goodness.” Then we are given the quotation:
“If Locke made few discoveries, Socrates made none.” Furthermore,
he was “memorable in the record of human progress.”
Isaac Newton receives no less than nineteen columns filled with
specific and unstinted praise; and in the three-and-a-half column
biography of George Berkeley we learn that Berkeley’s “new
conception marks a distinct stage of progress in human thought”;
that “he once for all lifted the problem of metaphysics to a higher
level,” and, with Hume, “determined the form into which later
metaphysical questions have been thrown.” Shaftesbury, whose main
philosophical importance was due to his ethical and moral
speculations in refutation of Hobbes’ egoism, is represented by a
biography of four and a half columns!
Hume receives over fourteen columns, with inset headings; Adam
Smith, nearly nine columns, five and a half of which are devoted to a
detailed consideration of his Wealth of Nations. Hutcheson, the
ethical moralist who drew the analogy between beauty and virtue—
the doctrinaire of the moral sense and the benevolent feelings—is
given no less than five columns; while Joseph Butler, the philosophic
divine who, we are told, is a “typical instance of the English
philosophical mind” and whose two basic premises were the

existence of a theological god and the limitation of human
knowledge, is given six and a half columns!
On the other hand, Mandeville receives only a column and two-
thirds. To begin with, he was of French parentage, and his
philosophy (according to the Britannica) “has always been
stigmatized as false, cynical and degrading.” He did not believe in
the higher Presbyterian virtues, and read hypocrisy into the vaunted
goodness of the English. Although in a history of modern philosophy
he is deserving of nearly equal space with Butler, in the Britannica he
is given only a little over one-fifth of the space! Even David Hartley,
the English physician who supplemented Hume’s theory of
knowledge, is given nearly as much consideration as the “degrading”
Mandeville. And Joseph Priestley, who merely popularized these
theories, is given no less than two columns.
Let us turn now to what has been called the “philosophy of the
enlightenment” in France and Germany, and we shall see the
exquisite workings of British moral prejudice in all its purity. Voltaire,
we learn, “was one of the most astonishing, if not exactly one of the
more admirable, figures of letters.” He had “cleverness,” but not
“genius”; and his great fault was an “inveterate superficiality.” Again:
“Not the most elaborate work of Voltaire is of much value for
matter.” (The biography, a derogatory and condescending one, is
written by the eminent moralist, George Saintsbury.)
Condillac, who is given far less space than either Berkeley or
Shaftesbury, only half of the space given Hutcheson, and only a little
over one-third of the space given Joseph Butler, is set down as
important for “having established systematically in France the
principles of Locke.” But his “genius was not of the highest order”;
and in his analysis of the mind “he missed out the active and
spiritual side of human experience.” James Mill did not like him, and
his method of imaginative reconstruction “was by no means suited
to English ways of thinking.” This latter shortcoming no doubt
accounts for the meagre and uncomplimentary treatment Condillac

receives in the great British reference work which is devoted so
earnestly to “English ways of thinking.”
Helvétius, whose theory of equality is closely related to Condillac’s
doctrine of psychic passivity, is given even shorter shrift, receiving
only a column and a third; and it is noted that “there is no doubt
that his thinking was unsystematic.” Diderot, however, fares much
better, receiving five columns of biography. But then, more and more
“did Diderot turn for the hope of the race to virtue; in other words,
to such a regulation of conduct and motive as shall make us tender,
pitiful, simple, contented,”—an attitude eminently fitted to “English
ways of thinking”! And Diderot’s one great literary passion, we learn,
was Richardson, the English novelist.
La Mettrie, the atheist, who held no brief for the pious virtues or
for the theological soul so beloved by the British, receives just half a
column of biography in which the facts of his doctrine are set down
more in sorrow than in anger. Von Holbach, the German-Parisian
prophet of earthly happiness, who denied the existence of a deity
and believed that the soul became extinct at physical death, receives
only a little more space than La Mettrie—less than a column. But
then, the uprightness of Von Holbach’s character “won the friendship
of many to whom his philosophy was repugnant.”
Montesquieu, however, is given five columns with liberal praise—
both space and eulogy being beyond his deserts. Perhaps an
explanation of such generosity lies in this sentence which we quote
from his biography: “It is not only that he is an Anglo-maniac, but
that he is rather English than French in style and thought.”
Rousseau, on the other hand, possessed no such exalted qualities;
and the biography of this great Frenchman is shorter than Adam
Smith’s and only a little longer than that of the English divine,
Joseph Butler! The Britannica informs us that Rousseau’s moral
character was weak and that he did not stand very high as a man.
Furthermore, he was not a philosopher; the essence of his religion
was sentimentalism; and during the last ten or fifteen years of his
life he was not sane. If you wish to see how unjust and biased is this

moral denunciation of Rousseau, turn to any unprejudiced history of
philosophy, and compare the serious and lengthy consideration given
him, with the consideration given the English moral thinkers who
prove such great favorites with the Britannica’s editors.
The German “philosophers of the enlightenment” are given even
less consideration. Christian Wolff, whose philosophy admittedly held
almost undisputed sway in Germany till eclipsed by Kantianism,
receives only a column-and-a-half biography, only half the space
given to Samuel Clarke, the English theological writer, and equal
space with John Norris, the English philosophical divine, and with
Arthur Collier, the English High Church theologian. Even Anthony
Collins, the English deist, receives nearly as long a biography. Moses
Mendelssohn draws only two and a half columns; Crusius, only half a
column; Lambert, only a little over three-fourths of a column;
Reimarus, only a column and a third, in which he is considered from
the standpoint of the English deists; and Edelmann and Tetens have
no biographies whatever!
Kant, as I have noted, receives less biographical space than Isaac
Newton, and only about a fifth more space than does either John
Locke or Hume. It is unnecessary to indicate here the prejudice
shown by these comparisons. Every one is cognizant of Kant’s
tremendous importance in the history of thought, and knows what
relative consideration should be given him in a work like the
Britannica. Hamann, “the wise man of the North,” who was the
foremost of Kant’s opponents, receives only a column-and-a-quarter
biography, in which he is denounced. His writings, to one not
acquainted with the man, must be “entirely unintelligible and, from
their peculiar, pietistic tone and scriptural jargon, probably
offensive.” And he expressed himself in “uncouth, barbarous
fashion.” Herder, however, another and lesser opponent of
Kantianism, receives four and a half columns. Jacobi receives three;
Reinhold, half a column; Maimon, two-thirds of a column; and
Schiller, four and a half columns. Compare these allotments of space
with: Thomas Hill Green, the English neo-Kantian, two and two-
thirds columns; Richard Price, a column and three-fourths;

Martineau, the English philosophic divine, five columns; Ralph
Cudworth, two columns; and Joseph Butler, six and a half columns!
In the treatment of German philosophic romanticism the
Encyclopædia Britannica is curiously prejudiced. The particular
philosophers of this school—especially the ones with speculative
systems—who had a deep and wide influence on English thought,
are treated with adequate liberality. But the later idealistic thinkers,
who substituted criticism for speculation, receive scant attention,
and in several instances are omitted entirely. For English readers
such a disproportioned and purely national attitude may be
adequate, since England’s intellectualism is, in the main, insular. But,
it must be remembered, the Britannica has assumed the character of
an American institution; and, to date, this country has not quite
reached that state of British complacency where it chooses to ignore
all information save that which is narrowly relative to English culture.
Some of us are still un-British enough to want an encyclopædia of
universal information. The Britannica is not such a reference work,
and the manner in which it deals with the romantic philosophers
furnishes ample substantiation of this fact.
Fichte, for instance, whose philosophy embodies a moral idealism
eminently acceptable to “English ways of thinking,” receives seven
columns of biography. Schelling, whose ideas were tainted with
mythical mysticism, but who was not an evolutionist in the modern
sense of the word, receives five columns. Hegel, who was, in a
sense, the great English philosophical idol and whose doctrines had
a greater influence in Great Britain than those of any other thinker, is
given no less than fifteen columns, twice the space that is given to
Rousseau, and five-sixths of the space that is given to Kant! Even
Schleiermacher is given almost equal space with Rousseau, and his
philosophy is interpreted as an effort “to reconcile science and
philosophy with religion and theology, and the modern world with
the Christian church.” Also, the focus of his thought, culture and life,
we are told, “was religion and theology.”

Schopenhauer is one of the few foreign philosophers who receive
adequate treatment in the Encyclopædia Britannica. But Boström, in
whose works the romantic school attained its systematic
culmination, receives just twenty-four lines, less space than is
devoted to Abraham Tucker, the English moralist, or to Garth
Wilkinson, the English Swedenborgian; and about the same amount
of space as is given to John Morell, the English Congregationalist
minister who turned philosopher. And Frederick Christian Sibbern
receives no biography whatever!
Kierkegaard, whose influence in the North has been profound,
receives only half a column, equal space with Andrew Baxter, the
feeble Scottish metaphysician; and only half the space given to
Thomas Brown, another Scotch “philosopher.” Fries who, with
Herbart, was the forerunner of modern psychology and one of the
leading representatives of the critical philosophy, is given just one
column; but Beneke, a follower of Fries, who approached more
closely to the English school, is allotted twice the amount of space
that Fries receives.
The four men who marked the dissolution of the Hegelian school—
Krause, Weisse, I. H. Fichte and Feuerbach—receive as the sum total
of all their biographies less space than is given to the English divine,
James Martineau, or to Francis Hutcheson. (In combating
Hegelianism these four thinkers invaded the precincts of British
admiration.) In the one-column biography of Krause we are told that
the spirit of his thought is difficult to follow and that his terminology
is artificial. Weisse receives only twenty-three lines; and I. H. Fichte,
the son of J. G. Fichte, receives only two-thirds of a column.
Feuerbach, who marked the transition between romanticism and
positivism and who accordingly holds an important position in the
evolution of modern thought, is accorded a biography of a column
and a half, shorter than that of Richard Price. Feuerbach, however,
unlike Price, was an anti-theological philosopher, and is severely
criticised for his spiritual shortcomings.

Let us glance quickly at the important philosophers of positivism
as represented in the Encyclopædia Britannica. At the end of the
seventeenth and at the beginning of the nineteenth centuries the
principal French philosophers representative of schools were de
Maistre, Maine de Biran, Ampère, Saint-Simon and Victor Cousin. De
Maistre, the most important philosopher of the principle of authority,
is given a biography of a column and a third, is highly praised for his
ecclesiasticism, and is permitted to be ranked with Hobbes. Maine de
Biran receives a little over a column; Ampère, less than a column;
and Saint-Simon, two and a third columns.
Victor Cousin is given the astonishing amount of space of eleven
columns; but just why he should have been treated in this
extravagant manner is not clear, for we are told that his search for
principles was not profound and that he “left no distinctive,
permanent principles of philosophy.” Nor does it seem possible that
he should draw nearly as much space as Rousseau and Montesquieu
combined simply because he left behind interesting analyses and
expositions of the work of Locke and the Scottish philosophers. Even
Comte is given only four and a half columns more.
The English philosophers of the nineteenth century before John
Stuart Mill are awarded space far in excess of their importance,
comparatively speaking. For instance, James Mill receives two
columns of biography; Coleridge, who “did much to deepen and
liberalize Christian thought in England,” five and three-fourths
columns; Carlyle, nine and two-thirds columns; William Hamilton,
two and three-fourths columns; Henry Mansel, a disciple of
Hamilton’s, two-thirds of a column; Whewell, over a column; and
Bentham, over three and a half columns.
Bentham’s doctrines “have become so far part of the common
thought of the time, that there is hardly an educated man who does
not accept as too clear for argument truths which were invisible till
Bentham pointed them out.... The services rendered by Bentham to
the world would not, however, be exhausted even by the practical
adoption of every one of his recommendations. There are no limits

to the good results of his introduction of a true method of reasoning
into the moral and political sciences.” John Stuart Mill, whose
philosophy is “generally spoken of as being typically English,”
receives nine and a half columns; Charles Darwin, seven columns;
and Herbert Spencer, over five.
Positivism in Germany is represented by Dühring in a biography
which is only three-fourths of a column in length—an article which is
merely an attack, both personal and general. “His patriotism,” we
learn, “is fervent, but narrow and exclusive.” (Dühring idolized
Frederick the Great.) Ardigò, the important Italian positivist, receives
no mention whatever in the Encyclopædia, although in almost any
adequate history of modern philosophy, even a brief one, you will
find a discussion of his work.
With the exception of Lotze, the philosophers of the new idealism
receive scant treatment in the Britannica. Hartmann and Fechner are
accorded only one column each; and Wilhelm Wundt, whose
æsthetic and psychological researches outstrip even his significant
philosophical work, is accorded only half a column! Francis Herbert
Bradley has no biography—a curious oversight, since he is English;
and Fouillée receives only a little over half a column.
The most inadequate and prejudiced treatment in the Britannica
of any modern philosopher is to be found in the biography of
Nietzsche, which is briefer than Mrs. Humphry Ward’s! Not only is
Nietzsche accorded less space than is given to such British
philosophical writers as Dugald Stewart, Henry Sidgwick, Richard
Price, John Norris, Thomas Hill Green, James Frederick Ferrier, Adam
Ferguson, Ralph Cudworth, Anthony Collins, Arthur Collier, Samuel
Clarke and Alexander Bain—an absurd and stupid piece of narrow
provincial prejudice—but the biography itself is superficial and
inaccurate. The supposed doctrine of Nietzsche is here used to
expose the personal opinions of the tutor of Corpus Christi College
who was assigned the task of interpreting Nietzsche to the readers
of the Britannica. It would be impossible to gather any clear or
adequate idea of Nietzsche and his work from this biased and moral

source. Here middle-class British insularity reaches its high-water
mark.
Other important modern thinkers, however, are given but little
better treatment. Lange receives only three-fourths of a column;
Paulsen, less than half a column; Ernst Mach, only seventeen lines;
Eucken, only twenty-eight lines, with a list of his works; and
Renouvier, two-thirds of a column. J. C. Maxwell, though, the
Cambridge professor, gets two columns—twice the space given
Nietzsche!
In the biography of William James we discern once more the
contempt which England has for this country. Here is a man whose
importance is unquestioned even in Europe, and who stands out as
one of the significant figures in modern thought; yet the
Encyclopædia Britannica, that “supreme book of knowledge,” gives
him a biography of just twenty-eight lines! And it is Americans who
are furnishing the profits for this English reference work!
Perhaps the British editors of this encyclopædia think that we
should feel greatly complimented at having William James admitted
at all when so many other important moderns of Germany and
France and America are excluded. But so long as unimportant
English philosophical writers are given biographies, we have a right
to expect, in a work which calls itself an “international dictionary of
biography,” the adequate inclusion of the more deserving
philosophers of other nations.
But what do we actually find? You may hunt the Encyclopædia
Britannica through, yet you will not see the names of John Dewey
and Stanley Hall mentioned! John Dewey, an American, is perhaps
the world’s leading authority on the philosophy of education; but the
British editors of the Encyclopædia do not consider him worth
noting, even in a casual way. Furthermore, Stanley Hall, another
American, who stands in the front rank of the world’s genetic
psychologists, is not so much as mentioned. And yet Hall’s great
work, Adolescence, appeared five years before the Britannica went
to press! Nor has Josiah Royce a biography, despite the fact that he

was one of the leaders in the philosophical thought of America, and
was even made an LL.D. by Aberdeen University in 1900. These
omissions furnish excellent examples of the kind of broad and
universal culture which is supposed to be embodied in the
Britannica.
But these are by no means all the omissions of the world’s
important modern thinkers. Incredible as it may seem, there is no
biography of Hermann Cohen, who elaborated the rationalistic
elements in Kant’s philosophy; of Alois Riehl, the positivist neo-
Kantian; of Windelband and Rickert, whose contributions to the
theory of eternal values in criticism are of decided significance to-
day; of Freud, a man who has revolutionized modern psychology
and philosophic determinism; of Amiel Boutroux, the modern French
philosopher of discontinuity; of Henri Bergson, whose influence and
popularity need no exposition here; of Guyau, one of the most
effective critics of English utilitarianism and evolutionism; or of Jung.
When we add Roberto Ardigò, Weininger, Edelmann, Tetans, and
Sibbern to this list of philosophic and psychologic writers who are
not considered of sufficient importance to receive biographical
mention in the Encyclopædia Britannica, we have, at a glance, the
prejudicial inadequacy and incompleteness of this “great” English
reference work. Nor can any excuse be offered that the works of
these men appeared after the Britannica was printed. At the time it
went to press even the most modern of these writers held a position
of sufficient significance or note to have been included.
In closing, and by way of contrast, let me set down some of the
modern British philosophical writers who are given liberal
biographies; Robert Adamson, the Scottish critical historian of
philosophy; Alexander Bain; Edward and John Caird, Scottish
philosophic divines; Harry Calderwood, whose work was based on
the contention that fate implies knowledge and on the doctrine of
divine sanction; David George Ritchie, an unimportant Scotch
thinker; Henry Sidgwick, an orthodox religionist and one of the
founders of the Society for Psychical Research; James H. Stirling, an

expounder of Hegel and Kant; William Wallace, an interpreter of
Hegel; and Garth Wilkinson, the Swedenborgian homeopath.
Such is the brief record of the manner in which the world’s
modern philosophers are treated in the Encyclopædia Britannica.
From this work hundreds of thousands of Americans are garnering
their educational ideas.

XI
RELIGION
Throughout several of the foregoing chapters I have laid
considerable emphasis on the narrow parochial attitude of the
Britannica’s editors and on the constant intrusion of England’s
middle-class Presbyterianism into nearly every branch of æsthetics.
The Britannica, far from being the objective and unbiased work it
claims to be, assumes a personal and prejudiced attitude, and the
culture of the world is colored and tinctured by that viewpoint. It
would appear self-obvious to say that the subject of religion in any
encyclopædia whose aim is to be universal, should be limited to the
articles on religious matters. But in the Encyclopædia Britannica this
is not the case. As I have shown, those great artists and thinkers
who do not fall within the range of bourgeois England’s suburban
morality, are neglected, disparaged, or omitted entirely.
Not only patriotic prejudice, but evangelical prejudice as well,
characterizes this encyclopædia’s treatment of the world’s great
achievements; and nowhere does this latter bias exhibit itself more
unmistakably than in the articles relating to Catholicism. The trickery,
the manifest ignorance, the contemptuous arrogance, the
inaccuracies, the venom, and the half-truths which are encountered
in the discussion of the Catholic Church and its history almost pass
the bounds of credibility. The wanton prejudice exhibited in this
department of the Britannica cannot fail to find resentment even in
non-Catholics, like myself; and for scholars, either in or out of the
Church, this encyclopædia, as a source of information, is not only
worthless but grossly misleading.
The true facts relating to the inclusion of this encyclopædia’s
article on Catholicism, as showing the arrogant and unscholarly
attitude of the editors, are as interesting to those outside of the

Church as to Catholics themselves. And it is for the reason that these
articles are typical of a great many of the Encyclopædia’s discussions
of culture in general that I call attention both to the misinformation
contained in them and to the amazing refusal of the Britannica’s
editors to correct the errors when called to their attention at a time
when correction was possible. The treatment of the Catholic Church
by the Britannica is quite in keeping with its treatment of other
important subjects, and it emphasizes, perhaps better than any
other topic, not only the Encyclopædia’s petty bias and
incompleteness, but the indefensible and mendacious advertising by
which this set of books was foisted upon the American public. And it
also gives direct and irrefutable substantiation to my accusation that
the spirit of the Encyclopædia Britannica is closely allied to the
provincial religious doctrines of the British bourgeoisie; and that
therefore it is a work of the most questionable value.
Over five years ago T. J. Campbell, S. J., in The Catholic Mind,
wrote an article entitled The Truth About the Encyclopædia
Britannica—an article which, from the standpoint of an authority,
exposed the utter unreliability of this Encyclopædia’s discussion of
Catholicism. The article is too long to quote here, but enough of it
will be given to reveal the inadequacy of the Britannica as a source
of accurate information. “The Encyclopædia Britannica,” the article
begins, “has taken an unfair advantage of the public. By issuing all
its volumes simultaneously it prevented any protests against
misstatements until the whole harm was done. Henceforth prudent
people will be less eager to put faith in prospectuses and promises.
The volumes were delivered in two installments a couple of months
apart. The article Catholic Church, in which the animus of the
Encyclopædia might have been detected, should naturally have been
in the first set. It was adroitly relegated to the end of the second
set, under the caption Roman Catholic Church.
“It had been intimated to us that the Encyclopædia’s account of
the Jesuits was particularly offensive. That is our excuse for
considering it first. Turning to it we found that the same old battered
scarecrow had been set up. The article covers ten and a half large,

double-columned, closely-printed pages, and requires more than an
hour in its perusal. After reading it two or three times we closed the
book with amazement, not at the calumnies with which the article
teems and to which custom has made us callous, but at the lack of
good judgment, of accurate scholarship, of common information,
and business tact which it reveals in those who are responsible for
its publication.
“It ought to be supposed that the subscribers to this costly
encyclopædia had a right to expect in the discussion of all the
questions presented an absolute or quasi-absolute freedom from
partisan bias, a sincere and genuine presentation of all the results of
the most modern research, a positive exclusion of all second-hand
and discredited matter, and a scrupulous adherence to historical
truth. In the article in question all these essential conditions are
woefully lacking.
“Encyclopædias of any pretence take especial pride in the
perfection and completeness of their bibliographies. It is a stamp of
scholarship and a guarantee of the thoroughness and reliability of
the article, which is supposed to be an extract and a digest of all
that has been said or written on the subject. The bibliography
annexed to the article on the Jesuits, is not only deplorably meagre,
but hopelessly antiquated. Thus, for instance, only three works of
the present century are quoted; one of them apparently for no
reason whatever, viz.: The History of the Jesuits of North America, in
three volumes, by Thomas Hughes, S. J., for, as far as we are able to
see, the Encyclopædia article makes no mention of their being with
Lord Baltimore in Maryland, or of the preceding troubles of the
Jesuits in England, which were considered important enough for a
monumental work, but evidently not for a compiler of the
Encyclopædia. Again, the nine words, ‘laboring amongst the Hurons
and Iroquois of North America,’ form the sum total of all the
information vouchsafed us about the great missions of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, though we are referred to the
seventy-three volumes of Thwaites’ edition of the Jesuits Relations.
Had the author or editor even glanced at these books he might have

seen that besides the Huron and Iroquois missions, which were very
brief in point of time and very restricted in their territorial limitations,
the Jesuit missions with the Algonquins extended from
Newfoundland to Alaska, and are still continued; he would have
found that most of the ethnological, religious, linguistic and
geographical knowledge we have of aboriginal North America comes
from those Jesuit Relations; and possibly without much research the
sluggish reader would have met with a certain inconspicuous
Marquette; but as Englishmen, up to the Civil War, are said to have
imagined that the Mississippi was the dividing line between the
North and South, the value of the epoch-making discovery of the
great river never entered this slow foreigner’s mind. Nor is there any
reference to the gigantic labors of the Jesuits in Mexico; but perhaps
Mexico is not considered to be in North America.
“Nor is there in this bibliography any mention of the Monumenta
Historica Societatis Jesu, nor of the Monumenta Pædagogica, nor is
there any allusion to the great and learned works of Duhr, Tacchi-
Venturi, Fouqueray, and Kroes, which have just been published and
are mines of information on the history of the Society in Spain,
Germany, Italy and France; and although we are told of the Historia
Societatis Jesu by Orlandini, which bears the very remote imprint of
1620, is very difficult to obtain, and covers a very restricted period,
there is apparently no knowledge of the classic work of Jouvency,
nor is Sacchini cited, nor Polanco. The Bibliothèque des écrivains de
la Compagnie de Jésus, by De Backer, not ‘Backer,’ as the
Encyclopædia has it, is listed; but it is simply shocking to find that
there was no knowledge of Sommervogel, who is the continuator of
De Backer, and who has left us a most scholarly and splendid work
which is brought down to our own times, and for which De Backer’s,
notable though it be, was only a preparation. In brief, the
bibliography is absolutely worthless, not only for a scholar, but even
for the average reader.
“On the other hand it is quite in keeping with the character of the
writers who were chosen for the article. The New York Evening Post
informs us that before 1880, when a search for a suitable scribe for

the Jesuit article was instituted, some one started on a hunt for
Cardinal Newman, but the great man had no time. Then he thought
of Manning, who, of course, declined, and finally knowing no other
‘Jesuit’ he gave the work to Littledale. Littledale, as everyone knows,
was an Anglican minister, notorious not only for his antagonism to
the Jesuits, but also to the Catholic Church. He gladly addressed
himself to the task, and forthwith informed the world that ‘the
Jesuits controlled the policy of Spain’; that ‘it was a matter of
common knowledge that they kindled the Franco-Prussian war of
1870’; that ‘Pope Julius II dispensed the Father General from his vow
of poverty,’ though that warrior Pope expired eight years before
Ignatius sought the solitude of Manresa, and had as yet no idea of a
Society of Jesus; again, that ‘the Jesuits from the beginning never
obeyed the Pope’; that ‘in their moral teaching they can attenuate
and even defend any kind of sin’; and, finally, not to be too prolix in
this list of absurdities, that, prior to the Vatican Council, ‘they had
filled up all the sees of Latin Christendom with bishops of their own
selection.’
“It is true that only the last mentioned charge appears in the
present edition, and it is a fortunate concession for Littledale’s
suffering victims; for if ‘there are no great intellects among the
Jesuits,’ and if they are only a set of ‘respectable mediocrities,’ as
this ‘revised’ article tells us, they can point with pride to this feat
which makes a dozen Franco-Prussian wars pale into insignificance
alongside it. We doubt, however, if the 700 prelates who sat in the
Vatican Council would accept that explanation of their promotion in
the prelacy; and we feel certain that Cardinal Manning, who was one
of the great figures in that assembly, would resent it, at least if it be
true, as the Encyclopædia assures us, that he considered the
suppression of the Society in 1773 to be the work of God, and was
sure that another 1773 was coming.
“The wonder is that a writer who can be guilty of such absurdities
should, after twenty years, be summoned from the dead as a
witness to anything at all. But on the other hand it is not surprising
when we see that the Rev. Ethelred Taunton, who is also dead and

buried, should be made his yoke-fellow in ploughing over this old
field, to sow again these poisonous weeds. There are many post-
mortems in the Encyclopædia. Had the careless editors of the
Encyclopædia consulted Usher’s Reconstruction of the English
Church, they would have found Taunton described as an author ‘who
makes considerable parade of the amount of his research, but has
not gone very far and has added little, if anything, to what we knew
before. As a whole, his book on The History of the Jesuits in England
is uncritical and prejudiced.’
“Such is the authority the Encyclopædia appeals to for
information. That is bad enough, but in the list of authors Taunton is
actually described as a ‘Jesuit.’ Possibly it is one of the punishments
the Almighty has meted out to him for his misuse of the pen while
on earth. But he never did half the harm to the Jesuits by his ill-
natured assaults as he has to the Encyclopædia in being mistaken
for an ‘S. J.’; for although there are some people who will believe
anything an encyclopædia tells them, there are others who are not
so meek and who will be moved to inquire how, if the editor of this
publication is so lamentably ignorant of the personality and
antecedents of his contributors, he can vouch for the reliability of
what newspaper men very properly call the stuff that comes into the
office. We are not told who revised the writings of those two dead
men, one of whom departed this life twenty, the other four years
ago; and we have to be satisfied with a posthumous and prejudiced
and partly anonymous account of a great Order, about which many
important books have been written since the demise of the original
calumniators, and with which apparently the unknown reviser is
unacquainted.
“It may interest the public to know that many of these errors were
pointed out to the managers of the Encyclopædia at their New York
office when the matter was still in page proof and could have been
corrected. Evidently it was not thought worth while to pay any
attention to the protest.

“It is true that in the minds of some of their enemies, especially in
certain parts of the habitable globe, Catholics have no right to resent
anything that is said of their practices and beliefs, no matter how
false or grotesque such statements may be; and, consequently, we
are not surprised at the assumption by the Encyclopædia Britannica
of its usual contemptuous attitude. Thus, for instance, on turning to
the articles Casuistry and Roman Catholic Church we find them
signed ‘St. C.’ Naturally and supernaturally to be under the guidance
of a Saint C. or a Saint D. always inspires confidence in a Catholic;
but this ‘St. C.’ turns out to be only the Viscount St. Cyres, a scion of
the noble house of Sir Stafford Northcote, the one time leader of the
House of Commons, who died in 1887. In the Viscount’s ancestral
tree we notice that Sir Henry Stafford Northcote, first Baronet, has
appended to his name the title ‘Prov. Master of Devonshire
Freemasons.’ What ‘Prov.’ means we do not know, but we are
satisfied with the remaining part of the description. The Viscount
was educated at Eton, and Merton College, Oxford. He is a layman
and a clubman, and as far as we know is not suspected of being a
Catholic. A search in the ‘Who’s Who?’ failed to reveal anything on
that point, though a glance at the articles over his name will
dispense us from any worry about his religious status.
“We naturally ask why he should have been chosen to enlighten
the world on Catholic topics? ‘Because,’ says the editor of the
Encyclopædia Britannica, ‘the Viscount St. Cyres has probably more
knowledge of the development of theology in the Roman Catholic
Church than any other person in that Church.’
“The Church was unaware that it had at its disposal such a source
of information. It will be news to many, but we are inclined to ask
how the Viscount acquired that marvelous knowledge. It would
require a life-long absorption in the study of divinity quite
incompatible with the social duties of one of his station.
Furthermore, we should like to know whence comes the competency
of the editor to decide on the ability of the Viscount, and to pass
judgment on the correctness of his contribution? That also supposes
an adequate knowledge of all that the dogmatic, moral and mystic

theologians ever wrote, a life-long training in the language and
methods of the science, and a special intellectual aptitude to
comprehend the sublime speculations of the Church’s divines.
“It will not be unkind to deny him such qualifications, especially
now, for did he not tell his friends at the London banquet: ‘During all
these (seven) years I have been busy in the blacksmith’s shop (of
the editor’s room) and I do not hear the noise that is made by the
hammers all around me’—nor, it might be added, does he hear what
is going on outside the Britannica’s forge.
“Meantime, we bespeak the attention of all the Catholic
theologians in every part of the world to the preposterous invitation
to come to hear the last word about ‘the development of theology’ in
the Catholic Church from a scholar whose claim to theological
distinction is that ‘he has written about Fénélon and Pascal.’ The
Britannica shows scant respect to Catholic scholarship and Catholic
intelligence.”
Father Campbell then devotes several pages to a specific
indictment of the misstatements and the glaring errors to be found
in several of the articles relating to the Catholic Church. He quotes
eight instances of St. Cyres’ inaccurate and personal accusations,
and also many passages from the articles on Papacy, Celibacy and
St. Catherine of Siena—passages which show the low and biased
standard of scholarship by which they were written. The injustice
contained in them is obvious even to a superficial student of history.
At the close of these quotations he accuses the Britannica of being
neither up-to-date, fair, nor well-informed. “It repeats old calumnies
that have been a thousand times refuted, and it persistently selects
the Church’s enemies who hold her up to ridicule and contempt. We
are sorry for those who have been lavish in their praises of a book
which is so defective, so prejudiced, so misleading and so insulting.”
It seems that while the Britannica’s contributions to the general
misinformation of the world were being discussed, the editor wrote
to one of his subscribers saying that the Catholics were very much

vexed because the article on the Jesuits was not “sufficiently
eulogistic.”
“He is evidently unaware,” Father Campbell goes on to comment,
“that the Society of Jesus is sufficiently known both in the Church
and the world not to need a monument in the graveyard of the
Encyclopædia Britannica. Not the humblest Brother in the Order
expected anything but calumny and abuse when he saw appended
to the article the initials of the well-known assassins of the Society’s
reputation. Not one was surprised, much less displeased, at the
absence of eulogy, sufficient or otherwise; but, on the contrary, they
were all amazed to find the loudly trumpeted commercial enterprise,
which had been so persistently clamorous of its possession of the
most recent results of research in every department of learning,
endeavoring to palm off on the public such shopworn travesties of
historical and religious truth. The editor is mistaken if he thinks they
pouted. Old and scarred veterans are averse to being patted on the
back by their enemies.
“It is not, however, the ill-judged gibe that compels us to revert to
the Society, as much as the suspicion that the editor of the
Encyclopædia Britannica seems to fancy that we had nothing to say
beyond calling attention to his dilapidated bibliography, which he
labels with the very offensive title of ‘the bibliography of Jesuitism’—
a term which is as incorrect as it is insulting—or that we merely
objected to the employment of two dead and discredited witnesses
to tell the world what kind of an organization the Society is.
“It may be, moreover, that we misjudged a certain portion of the
reading public in treating the subject so lightly, and as the
Encyclopædia is continually reiterating the assertion that it has no
‘bias’ and that its statement of facts is purely ‘objective,’ a few
concrete examples of the opposite kind of treatment—the one
commonly employed—may not be out of place.
“We are told, for instance, that ‘the Jesuits had their share, direct
or indirect, in the embroiling of States, in concocting conspiracies
and in kindling wars. They were responsible by their theoretical

teachings in theological schools for not a few assassinations’ (340).
‘They powerfully aided the revolution which placed the Duke of
Braganza on the throne of Portugal, and their services were
rewarded with the practical control of ecclesiastical and almost civil
affairs in that kingdom for nearly one hundred years’ (344). ‘Their
war against the Jansenists did not cease till the very walls of Port
Royal were demolished in 1710, even to the very abbey church itself,
and the bodies of the dead taken with every mark of insult from
their graves and literally flung to the dogs to devour’ (345). ‘In
Japan the Jesuits died with their converts bravely as martyrs to the
Faith, yet it is impossible to acquit them of a large share of the
causes of that overthrow’ (345). ‘It was about the same time that
the grave scandal of the Chinese and Malabar rites began to attract
attention in Europe and to make thinking men ask seriously whether
the Jesuit missionaries in those parts taught anything which could
fairly be called Christianity at all’ (348). ‘The political schemings of
Parsons in England was an object lesson to the rest of Europe of a
restless ambition and a lust of domination which were to find many
imitators’ (348). ‘The General of the Order drove away six thousand
exiled Jesuit priests from the coast of Italy, and made them pass
several months of suffering on crowded vessels at sea to increase
public sympathy, but the actual result was blame for the cruelty with
which he had enhanced their misfortunes’ (346). ‘Clement XIV, who
suppressed them, is said to have died of poison, but Tanucci and two
others entirely acquit the Jesuits.’ ‘They are accountable in no small
degree in France, as in England, for alienating the minds of men
from the religion for which they professed to work’ (345).
“Very little of this can be characterized as ‘eulogistic,’ especially as
interwoven in the story are malignant insinuations, incomplete and
distorted statements, suppressions of truth, gross errors of fact, and
a continual injection of personal venom which makes the argument
not an ‘unbiased and objective presentment’ of the case, but the
plea of a prejudiced prosecuting and persecuting attorney
endeavoring by false testimony to convict before the bar of public

opinion an alleged culprit, whose destruction he is trying to
accomplish with an uncanny sort of delight.”
After having adduced a long list of instances which “reveal the
rancor and ignorance of many of the writers hired by the
Encyclopædia,” the article then points out “the fundamental
untruthfulness” on which the Britannica is built. In a letter written by
the Encyclopædia’s editor appears the following specious
explanation: “Extreme care was taken by the editors, and especially
by the editor responsible for the theological side of the work, that
every subject, either directly or indirectly concerned with religion,
should as far as possible be objective and not subjective in their
presentation. The majority of the articles on the various Churches
and their beliefs were written by members within the several
communions, and, if not so written, were submitted to those most
competent to judge, for criticism and, if need be, correction.”
Father Campbell in his answer to this letter says: “Without
animadverting on the peculiar use of the English language by the
learned English editor who tells us that ‘every subject’ should be
‘objective’ in their presentation, we do not hesitate to challenge
absolutely the assertion that ‘the majority of the articles on the
various Churches were written by members within the several
communions, and if not so written were submitted to those most
competent to judge, for criticism and, if need be, for correction.’
Such a pretence is simply amazing, and thoroughly perplexed, we
asked: What are we supposed to understand when we are informed
that ‘the majority of the articles on the various Churches and their
beliefs were written by members within the several communions’?
“Was the article on The Roman Catholic Church written by a
Catholic? Was the individual who accumulated and put into print all
those vile aspersions on the Popes, the saints, the sacraments, the
doctrines of the Church, a Catholic? Were the other articles on
Casuistry, Celibacy, St. Catherine of Siena, and Mary, the mother of
Jesus, written by a Catholic? The supposition is simply inconceivable,

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
testbankfan.com

Information Technology Project Management 5th Edition Marchewka Test Bank

More Related Content

Similar to Information Technology Project Management 5th Edition Marchewka Test Bank (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Information Technology Project Management 5th Edition Marchewka Test Bank