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
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
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
Suspicious as they are of American intentions, and bolstered by court rulings that seem to give them license to seek out and publish any and all government secrets, the media‘s distrust of our government, combined with their limited understanding of the world at large, damages our ability to design and conduct good policy in ways that the media rarely imagine.
The leak through which sensitive information flows from the government to the press is detrimental to policy in so far as it almost completely precludes the possibility of serious discussion. The fear that anything they say, even in what is construed as a private forum, may appear in print, makes many people, whether our own government officials or the leaders of foreign countries, unwilling to speak their minds.
Must we be content with the restriction of our leaders‘ policy discussions to a handful of people who trust each other, thus limiting the richness and variety of ideas that could be brought forward through a larger group because of the nearly endemic nature of this problem? It is vitally important for the leaders of the United States to know the real state of affairs internationally, and this can occur only if foreign leaders feel free to speak their minds to our diplomats.
Until recently, it looked as if the media had convinced the public that journalists were more reliable than the government; however, this may be changing. With the passage of time, the media have lost lustre. They—having grown large and powerful—provoke the same public skepticism that other large institutions in the society do. A series of media scandals has contributed to this. Many Americans have concluded that the media are no more credible than the government, and public opinion surveys reflect much ambivalence about the press.
While leaks are generally defended by media officials on the grounds of the public‘s --right to know,| in reality they are part of the Washington political power game, as well as part of the policy process. The "leaker" may be currying favour with the media, or may be planting information to influence policy. In the first case, he is helping himself by enhancing the prestige of a journalist; in the second, he is using the media as a stage for his preferred policies. In either instance, it closes the circle: the leak begins with a political motive, is advanced by a politicized media, and continues because of politics. Although some of the journalists think they are doing the work, they are more often than not instruments of the process, not prime movers. The media must be held accountable for their activities, just like every other significant institution in our society, and the media must be forced to earn the public‘s trust.
1. Based on the information in the passage, with which of the following statements would the author most likely agree? A. Feeding the public misinformation is warranted in certain situations. B. The public has a right to know the real state of foreign affairs. C. The fewer the number of people involved in policy discussions, the better. D. Leaders give up their right to privacy when they are elected. E. The media is not accountable to the public
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.
I think the answer is clearly A. It can be inferred from the 2nd paragraph.
A. Feeding the public misinformation is warranted in certain situations. Correct B. The public has a right to know the real state of foreign affairs. Public's rights are out of scope. C. The fewer the number of people involved in policy discussions, the better. No connection to the passage. D. Leaders give up their right to privacy when they are elected. Out of scope E. The media is not accountable to the public The idea of the passage is clearly to suggest that the media should be made accountable for its actions.
'The leak through which sensitive information flows from the government to the press is detrimental to policy in so far as it almost completely precludes the possibility of serious discussion. The fear that anything they say, even in what is construed as a private forum, may appear in print, makes many people, whether our own government officials or the leaders of foreign countries, unwilling to speak their minds. '
The paragraph only seems to suggest the author does NOT warrant the negative effect media has on the local and forieng officials.
Where does it mention that the author approves of misinformation to the public?
Upon further thought I believe the reasoning is per below.
paragraph 2 :- 'The leak through which sensitive information flows from the government to the press is detrimental to policy in so far as it almost completely precludes the possibility of serious discussion. The fear that anything they say, even in what is construed as a private forum, may appear in print, makes many people, whether our own government officials or the leaders of foreign countries, unwilling to speak their minds. '
The author here suggests that due to widespead 'leaks' the public officilas more often than not may mis represent the actual scenario. Hence, the author is against 'leaks' but feels that due to its widespread presence it is warranted that public officials may sometime misrepresent data.
Option B :- (to which I was originally inclined)- B. The public has a right to know the real state of foreign affairs.
The above is wrong because ' the public has a right' is out of scope as it is too strong a view. the author does not mention the rights of the public anywhere. he merely discusses the effect media can have on further policy making etc.
The answer is clearly A. My method of attacking this type of question is the following: When you are asked "which of the following statements would the author most likely agree"? This type of question falls into the category of general type of questions. These type of questions are mostly linked to the main idea of the passage. In parragraph number 1:
Suspicious as they are of American intentions, and bolstered by court rulings that seem to give them license to seek out and publish any and all government secrets, the media‘s distrust of our government, combined with their limited understanding of the world at large, damages our ability to design and conduct good policy in ways that the media rarely imagine.
This parragraph clearly states that the media damages the abiliy of governments to design and conduct good policy. This parragraph states the position held by the author. In other words, "feeding the public misinformation is warranted in certain situations", is certainly in the line of reasoning of the author. Finally, the government will be able to design and conduct good policy without being damaged by the media by handing out misinformation to the public.
Suspicious as they are of American intentions, and bolstered by court rulings that seem to give them license to seek out and publish any and all government secrets, the media‘s distrust of our government, combined with their limited understanding of the world at large, damages our ability to design and conduct good policy in ways that the media rarely imagine.
Show more
Unrelated to RC, but doesn't the above statement seem to have grammatical error? The pronoun "they" in the opening statement does not have a noun referring to it. Or am I missing anything!
POE can suggest (A) but i am not fully convinced with the answer choice because if, A. Feeding the public misinformation is warranted in certain situations. but the author has spoken that the feeding pubic misinformation should be warranted in "every" situation rather "certain" situation. This was a difficult question though !
A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.