Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
28 Nov 2007, 16:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
In a recent survey, Garber and Holtz concluded
that the average half-hour children's
television show contains 47 violent acts.
When asked about the survey, network
(5) television executive Jean Pater responded, "I
sure as heck don't think that Bugs Bunny's
pouring a glass of milk over a chipmunk's
head is violence." Unfortunately, both
Garber and Holtz and Pater beg the question.
(10) The real issue is whether children view such
acts as violence.
The violence programming aimed at
children almost always appears in the context
of fantasy. 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,
depends entirely on the viewer's
(20) knowledge that the portrayal is fictional.
Most children as young as four years can
distinguish these three contexts, though
there is no support for the idea that children,
especially young children, can differentiate
(25) types of violence on a cognitive or rational
basis--for example, by justification of the
motives for the violent behavior.
There is no evidence of direct imitation
of television violence by children, though
(30) there is evidence that fantasy violence can
energize previously learned aggressive responses
such as a physical attack on another
child during play. It is by no means clear,
however, that the violence in a portrayal is
(35) solely responsible for this energizing effect.
Rather, the evidence suggests that any
exciting material can trigger subsequent
aggressive behavior and that it is the excitation
rather than the portrayal of violence
(40) that instigates or energizes any subsequent
violent behavior. "Cold" imitation of violence
by children is extremely rare, and the
very occasional evidence of direct, imitative
associations between television violence and
(45) aggressive behavior has been limited to
extremely novel and violent acts by teenagers
or adults with already established patterns of
deviant behavior. The instigational effect
means, in the short-term, that exposure to
(50) violent portrayals could be dangerous if
shortly after the exposure (within 15 to 20
minutes), the child happens to be in a
situation that calls for interpersonal aggression
as an appropriate response, e.g., an
(55) argument between siblings or among peers.
This same instigational effect, however, could
be produced by other exciting but nonviolent
television content or by any other
excitational source, including, ironically, a
(60) parent's turning off the set.
So there is no convincing causal evidence
of any cumulative instigational effects such
as more aggressive or violent dispositions in
children. In fact, passivity is more likely a
(65) long-term result of heavy viewing of television
violence. The evidence does not warrant
the strong conclusions advanced by many
critics who tend to use television violence as
a scapegoat to draw public attention away
(70) from the real causes of violence--causes like
abusive spouses and parents and a culture
that celebrates violence generally.
1. The primary purpose of the passage is to
(A) correct a popular misconception
(B) outline the history of a theory
(C) propose a solution to a social problem
(D) criticize the work of earlier researchers
(E) offer a theory of criminal behavior
2. According to the passage, all of the following
would deter a child from regarding an incident of
television violence as real EXCEPT:
(A) including easily recognized cartoon characters
(B) explaining that characters mean to do no harm
(C) having characters laugh at their misfortunes
(D) using a futuristic setting with spaceships and robots
(E) setting the action in prehistoric times
3. It can be inferred that the author uses the word
appropriate in line 54 to mean
(A) acceptable
(B) desirable
(C) learned
(D) normal
(E) violent
4. The author implies that a child who has an argument
with a sibling two to three hours after watching fantasy
violence on television would
(A) almost surely be more aggressive than usual
(B) tend to act out the fantasy violence on the sibling
(C) probably not be unusually violent or aggressive
(D) likely lapse into a state of passivity
(E) generally, but not always, be more violent
5. The author mentions the possible effect of a parent's
turning off a television (line 60) in order to
(A) demonstrate that children are able to distinguish
fantasy violence from real violence
(B) highlight the fact that it is not violence but energy
level that stimulates behavior
(C) refute the suggestion that children are able to
understand the motive for a violent action
(D) question the evidence for the proposition that
television violence causes violent behavior
(E) show that reducing the number of hours a
child watches television effectively eliminates passivity
6. The author would most likely agree with which
of the following statements?
(A) The question of how television affects children
cannot be answered by defining or redefining the term
"violent" but only by assessing the effect of programming
on behavior.
(B) The lack of direct causal evidence of any long-lasting
effect of television viewing on the behavior of children proves
that children's programs do not contain violence.
(C) The number of violent acts in a television program
provides an indication of the cumulative energizing effect
that viewing the program is likely to have on behavior.
(D) Adult action programming which features actors
engaged in violent behavior is likely to have the same
behavioral effects as a cartoon showing similar behavior.
(E) The disagreement between the television industry and
its critics over the content of programming for children
could be resolved by finding an appropriate definition
of "violent."
7. Which of the following best describes the author's
attitude about critics who say that television is an important
cause of violent behavior in children?
(A) qualified endorsement
(B) contemptuous dismissal
(C) enthusiastic acceptance
(D) moderate skepticism
(E) cautious criticism
that the average half-hour children's
television show contains 47 violent acts.
When asked about the survey, network
(5) television executive Jean Pater responded, "I
sure as heck don't think that Bugs Bunny's
pouring a glass of milk over a chipmunk's
head is violence." Unfortunately, both
Garber and Holtz and Pater beg the question.
(10) The real issue is whether children view such
acts as violence.
The violence programming aimed at
children almost always appears in the context
of fantasy. 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,
depends entirely on the viewer's
(20) knowledge that the portrayal is fictional.
Most children as young as four years can
distinguish these three contexts, though
there is no support for the idea that children,
especially young children, can differentiate
(25) types of violence on a cognitive or rational
basis--for example, by justification of the
motives for the violent behavior.
There is no evidence of direct imitation
of television violence by children, though
(30) there is evidence that fantasy violence can
energize previously learned aggressive responses
such as a physical attack on another
child during play. It is by no means clear,
however, that the violence in a portrayal is
(35) solely responsible for this energizing effect.
Rather, the evidence suggests that any
exciting material can trigger subsequent
aggressive behavior and that it is the excitation
rather than the portrayal of violence
(40) that instigates or energizes any subsequent
violent behavior. "Cold" imitation of violence
by children is extremely rare, and the
very occasional evidence of direct, imitative
associations between television violence and
(45) aggressive behavior has been limited to
extremely novel and violent acts by teenagers
or adults with already established patterns of
deviant behavior. The instigational effect
means, in the short-term, that exposure to
(50) violent portrayals could be dangerous if
shortly after the exposure (within 15 to 20
minutes), the child happens to be in a
situation that calls for interpersonal aggression
as an appropriate response, e.g., an
(55) argument between siblings or among peers.
This same instigational effect, however, could
be produced by other exciting but nonviolent
television content or by any other
excitational source, including, ironically, a
(60) parent's turning off the set.
So there is no convincing causal evidence
of any cumulative instigational effects such
as more aggressive or violent dispositions in
children. In fact, passivity is more likely a
(65) long-term result of heavy viewing of television
violence. The evidence does not warrant
the strong conclusions advanced by many
critics who tend to use television violence as
a scapegoat to draw public attention away
(70) from the real causes of violence--causes like
abusive spouses and parents and a culture
that celebrates violence generally.
1. The primary purpose of the passage is to
(A) correct a popular misconception
(B) outline the history of a theory
(C) propose a solution to a social problem
(D) criticize the work of earlier researchers
(E) offer a theory of criminal behavior
2. According to the passage, all of the following
would deter a child from regarding an incident of
television violence as real EXCEPT:
(A) including easily recognized cartoon characters
(B) explaining that characters mean to do no harm
(C) having characters laugh at their misfortunes
(D) using a futuristic setting with spaceships and robots
(E) setting the action in prehistoric times
3. It can be inferred that the author uses the word
appropriate in line 54 to mean
(A) acceptable
(B) desirable
(C) learned
(D) normal
(E) violent
4. The author implies that a child who has an argument
with a sibling two to three hours after watching fantasy
violence on television would
(A) almost surely be more aggressive than usual
(B) tend to act out the fantasy violence on the sibling
(C) probably not be unusually violent or aggressive
(D) likely lapse into a state of passivity
(E) generally, but not always, be more violent
5. The author mentions the possible effect of a parent's
turning off a television (line 60) in order to
(A) demonstrate that children are able to distinguish
fantasy violence from real violence
(B) highlight the fact that it is not violence but energy
level that stimulates behavior
(C) refute the suggestion that children are able to
understand the motive for a violent action
(D) question the evidence for the proposition that
television violence causes violent behavior
(E) show that reducing the number of hours a
child watches television effectively eliminates passivity
6. The author would most likely agree with which
of the following statements?
(A) The question of how television affects children
cannot be answered by defining or redefining the term
"violent" but only by assessing the effect of programming
on behavior.
(B) The lack of direct causal evidence of any long-lasting
effect of television viewing on the behavior of children proves
that children's programs do not contain violence.
(C) The number of violent acts in a television program
provides an indication of the cumulative energizing effect
that viewing the program is likely to have on behavior.
(D) Adult action programming which features actors
engaged in violent behavior is likely to have the same
behavioral effects as a cartoon showing similar behavior.
(E) The disagreement between the television industry and
its critics over the content of programming for children
could be resolved by finding an appropriate definition
of "violent."
7. Which of the following best describes the author's
attitude about critics who say that television is an important
cause of violent behavior in children?
(A) qualified endorsement
(B) contemptuous dismissal
(C) enthusiastic acceptance
(D) moderate skepticism
(E) cautious criticism
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Reading Comprehension (RC) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
28 Nov 2007, 23:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
That was pretty difficult.
1:A
2:C
3:D
4:C
5:B
6:A
7:E
explanations below
1. A.
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.
D: Irrelevent
E: Irrelevant
3: D.
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?
B: no.
C: nope
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
5: 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
children"
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.
1:A
2:C
3:D
4:C
5:B
6:A
7:E
explanations below
1. A.
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.
D: Irrelevent
E: Irrelevant
3: D.
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?
B: no.
C: nope
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
5: 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
children"
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.
