That was pretty difficult.
B: no outline of a theory given, especially its history
C: no solution is proposed
D: no researchers are mentioned
E: criminal is out of scope
2: C not really sure though for this one
A: seems ok, i cant really find how this would deter them.
B: the passages says "depends on the viewers knowledge" I think this would deter them.
A: close, but the action is not "justified or correct" but an expected response so I dont think A is the correct answer. i.e. if someone hits you what do you do back? obviosly punch their teeth down their throat
. Is this acceptable?
E: could be violent, but not the meaning of what was said
4:C. suggests only after 15-20minutes violence may errupt from "energy"
A: goes against the passage
B: goes against passage again
D: this only happens after long viewing of TV. this is an unwarrented answer
E: again like A and B
"This same instigational effect, however, could
be produced by other exciting but nonviolent
television content or by any other
excitational source, including, ironically, a parent's turning off the set. "
6: A. I think you got me on this one. But I can eliminate some
B: this is too extreme
C: I dont think this is suggested in the passage. In fact this probably goes against the "passavity" affect described. In fact looking back here is an excerpt which disproves C: "So there is no convincing causal evidence
of any cumulative instigational effects such
as more aggressive or violent dispositions in
E: This is unwarrented.
D: I don't think the author would agree with this, but im not really sure. I used this to eliminate D: "Cartoon violence generally
(15) includes animation, humor, and a remote
setting; make-believe violence generally uses
only the first two cues; realistic, acted violence,
which is not used in programming for children"
7: Id say E.
A: Def. doesnt endorse this
B: dismisses isnt harsh enough
C: no way
D: he/she is not skeptical, but outright critical
E: Probably this. However, i dont know why the author is "cautious", maybe because he/she is careful on how he/she critizes. Thus, he/she is more correct this way.