For the first half of the 20th century, we journalists understood that our role was to report politicians on their own terms. We did not try to interpret, still less challenge. On the contrary, it was understood that the role of a parliamentary correspondent was to set down and describe the words and actions of the leading statesmen of the day. __________ It was assumed that the reader would reach his own judgment. In his early novels, Christopher Isherwood insisted that he sought to convey an unrefracted version of reality to the general reader. "I am a Camera", he said. Political journalists had exactly the same objectives.
(1) A reporter had an ideological backbone, focused much on presentation, asked soft questions and was accused of failing to provide fresh insight. (2) A reporter followed a parliamentarian to his constituency, sat on his private meeting and was granted the liberty of asking anything he liked. (3) Political opinions on any subject were only produced in laboratory conditions after market testing and rigorous consultations. (4) Political speeches would be reported on newspaper front pages, often spread over several columns, the day after they were made.
(5) The art of the reporter is no longer to report a political speech rather it is to identify and then isolate a sentence or off-the-cuff remark which will make news.
option 4 is the ans. Hungrymind u are spot on .:) P.S.--PEOPLE JUST CHECK HIS REASONING
the booker is a prize awarded by the british literary establishment according to its value system; yet the book that receives it becomes, in our country, the most important book of its time. The question is: Why do we have to wholeheartedly accept their valuation and dismiss the response of readers in this country? Even salman rushdie, that most international of writers, says that the readers you write for are the people you are writing about. But the booker undoubtedly an important literary prize has become so important to us that while we ignore the prizes given in our country, discussions about the booker longlist, and then about the shortlist go on for months. ________________________ (1) in our country the obsession with labels is what helps us to metaphorically spell out our latent desire for recognition from the so-called white- elite. (2) to talk of subversion makes it seem that indian writing in english (iwe) still thinks of europe or america as its centre. (3) the fault lies with the readers as they prefer reading the books that receive an international prize over the ones that receive domestic honours. (4) the booker should not be held as a benchmark for deciding the greatness of a book especially by the people of a culture richer than that of the british. (5) this makes it hard to accept the argument that winning the booker is an act of subversion.
The Booker is a prize awarded by the British literary establishment according to its value system; yet the book that receives it becomes, in our country, the most important book of its time. The question is: why do we have to wholeheartedly accept their valuation and dismiss the response of readers in this country? Even Salman Rushdie, that most international of writers, says that the readers you write for are the people you are writing about. But the Booker - undoubtedly an important literary prize - has become so important to us that while we ignore the prizes given in our country, discussions about the Booker longlist, and then about the shortlist go on for months. ________________________ (1) In our country the obsession with 'labels' is what helps us to metaphorically spell out our latent desire for recognition from the so-called 'white- elite'. (2) To talk of subversion makes it seem that Indian Writing in English (IWE) still thinks of Europe or America as its centre. (3) The fault lies with the readers as they prefer reading the books that receive an international prize over the ones that receive domestic honours. (4) The Booker should not be held as a benchmark for deciding the greatness of a book especially by the people of a culture richer than that of the British. (5) This makes it hard to accept the argument that winning the Booker is an act of subversion.
The Booker is a prize awarded by the British literary establishment according to its value system; yet the book that receives it becomes, in our country, the most important book of its time. The question is: why do we have to wholeheartedly accept their valuation and dismiss the response of readers in this country? Even Salman Rushdie, that most international of writers, says that the readers you write for are the people you are writing about. But the Booker - undoubtedly an important literary prize - has become so important to us that while we ignore the prizes given in our country, discussions about the Booker longlist, and then about the shortlist go on for months. ________________________
Argument :- Indians are biased towards the valuation of British literary establishment and response of Indian readers is dismissed
(1) In our country the obsession with 'labels' is what helps us to metaphorically spell out our latent desire for recognition from the so-called 'white- elite'.---------though it continues the theme but it is the repetition of the idea discussed in the passage that "we wholeheartedly accept their valuation"
(2) To talk of subversion makes it seem that Indian Writing in English (IWE) still thinks of Europe or America as its centre.
(3) The fault lies with the readers as they prefer reading the books that receive an international prize over the ones that receive domestic honours.---------this is not valid because it is the Indian Value system which dismisses the reader response for Indian books
(4) The Booker should not be held as a benchmark for deciding the greatness of a book especially by the people of a culture richer than that of the British.-----"culture comparison" is not valid
(5) This makes it hard to accept the argument that winning the Booker is an act of subversion.------ it continues the theme in the last line "discussions about the Booker longlist, and then about the shortlist go on for months , thereby neutralizing the sin of acknowledging British Valuation of Literary achivement as an act that undermines domestic literary achievements.
Cleaning up after a catastrophe is hard work in any country - witness the debacle that followed Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. But few places are less prepared than the isolated, desperately poor nation of 53 million that is Burma. Ruled by a clique of reclusive generals since 1962, Burma, also known as Myanmar, has degenerated from a resource-rich country, which upon independence from the British 60 years ago was hailed as a model for modern Asia into an economic disaster zone. __________ Medical experts warn that filthy water, poor sanitation and lack of shelter could prove almost as deadly as the cyclone itself. And estimates of how many people were killed by the storm and an accompanying tidal surge could spiral far higher. (1) For centuries, the paths of planets and vagaries of weather have been scrutinized by astrologers who drive a relationship between celestial irregularities and earthly mayhem. (2) Burma now faces one of the world's worst health systems, a worrisome situation as diseases fester in the wake of the devastating cyclone - Nargis. (3) The scene of devastation has reached apocalyptic levels as aerial photos of the Irrawaddy delta, Burma's rice bowl, show much of the region, still inundated by a vast surge of muddy water. (4) The cyclone tore across the country on May 2 and 3 - killing tens of thousands of people and leaving hundreds of thousands more homeless. (5) A senior U.S. diplomat in Burma, said the death toll could exceed 100,000, nearly five times the junta's estimate at the time.
Cleaning up after a catastrophe is hard work in any country - witness the debacle that followed Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. But few places are less prepared than the isolated, desperately poor nation of 53 million that is Burma. Ruled by a clique of reclusive generals since 1962, Burma, also known as Myanmar, has degenerated from a resource-rich country, which upon independence from the British 60 years ago was hailed as a model for modern Asia into an economic disaster zone. __________ Medical experts warn that filthy water, poor sanitation and lack of shelter could prove almost as deadly as the cyclone itself. And estimates of how many people were killed by the storm and an accompanying tidal surge could spiral far higher. (1) For centuries, the paths of planets and vagaries of weather have been scrutinized by astrologers who drive a relationship between celestial irregularities and earthly mayhem. (2) Burma now faces one of the world's worst health systems, a worrisome situation as diseases fester in the wake of the devastating cyclone - Nargis. (3) The scene of devastation has reached apocalyptic levels as aerial photos of the Irrawaddy delta, Burma's rice bowl, show much of the region, still inundated by a vast surge of muddy water. (4) The cyclone tore across the country on May 2 and 3 - killing tens of thousands of people and leaving hundreds of thousands more homeless. (5) A senior U.S. diplomat in Burma, said the death toll could exceed 100,000, nearly five times the junta's estimate at the time.
IMO 4. Please post the OA and source of the question.
Cleaning up after a catastrophe is hard work in any country - witness the debacle that followed Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. But few places are less prepared than the isolated, desperately poor nation of 53 million that is Burma. Ruled by a clique of reclusive generals since 1962, Burma, also known as Myanmar, has degenerated from a resource-rich country, which upon independence from the British 60 years ago was hailed as a model for modern Asia into an economic disaster zone. __________ Medical experts warn that filthy water, poor sanitation and lack of shelter could prove almost as deadly as the cyclone itself. And estimates of how many people were killed by the storm and an accompanying tidal surge could spiral far higher. (1) For centuries, the paths of planets and vagaries of weather have been scrutinized by astrologers who drive a relationship between celestial irregularities and earthly mayhem. -----out of context
(2) Burma now faces one of the world's worst health systems, a worrisome situation as diseases fester in the wake of the devastating cyclone - Nargis. ----"Burma now faces" continues with the theme of economic disaster of Burma. Also, worst health systems due to cyclone-Nargis is supported by the fact that medical experts warn as this could be as worst as cyclone itself.
(3) The scene of devastation has reached apocalyptic levels as aerial photos of the Irrawaddy delta, Burma's rice bowl, show much of the region, still inundated by a vast surge of muddy water. (4) The cyclone tore across the country on May 2 and 3 - killing tens of thousands of people and leaving hundreds of thousands more homeless.-------this is close to answer but nowhere a hint of deteriorating health system is given. However , the last line that estimates to spiral further indicates this as the answer.But it is not the immediate line,so i will prefer 2).
(5) A senior U.S. diplomat in Burma, said the death toll could exceed 100,000, nearly five times the junta's estimate at the time.
my take as above pl. post OA and find flaw in my reasoning,if wrong ....
. (1) For centuries, the paths of planets and vagaries of weather have been scrutinized by astrologers who drive a relationship between celestial irregularities and earthly mayhem this one does not fit the context (2) Burma now faces one of the world's worst health systems, a worrisome situation as diseases fester in the wake of the devastating cyclone - Nargis. i feel either 2 or 3 is the best option and i would go with option 2 (3) The scene of devastation has reached apocalyptic levels as aerial photos of the Irrawaddy delta, Burma's rice bowl, show much of the region, still inundated by a vast surge of muddy water. (4) The cyclone tore across the country on May 2 and 3 - killing tens of thousands of people and leaving hundreds of thousands more homeless. (5) A senior U.S. diplomat in Burma, said the death toll could exceed 100,000, nearly five times the junta's estimate at the time. even though it is to the context,it does not fit in the blank
Cleaning up after a catastrophe is hard work in any country - witness the debacle that followed Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. But few places are less prepared than the isolated, desperately poor nation of 53 million that is Burma. Ruled by a clique of reclusive generals since 1962, Burma, also known as Myanmar, has degenerated from a resource-rich country, which upon independence from the British 60 years ago was hailed as a model for modern Asia into an economic disaster zone. __________ Medical experts warn that filthy water, poor sanitation and lack of shelter could prove almost as deadly as the cyclone itself. And estimates of how many people were killed by the storm and an accompanying tidal surge could spiral far higher. (2) Burma now faces one of the world's worst health systems, a worrisome situation as diseases fester in the wake of the devastating cyclone - Nargis.-This is Bang on as the para has talked about Model of Modern asia turning into a economic disaster zone so it is very imperative to talk about any one system under it so we get the medical system further the "Nargis Cyclone" forms the continuity in the nxt sentence
(2) Burma now faces one of the world's worst health systems, a worrisome situation as diseases fester in the wake of the devastating cyclone - Nargis.-This is Bang on as the para has talked about Model of Modern asia turning into a economic disaster zone so it is very imperative to talk about any one system under it so we get the medical system further the "Nargis Cyclone" forms the continuity in the nxt sentence
D should be the correct answer... reasoning in red....
Medical experts warn that filthy water, poor sanitation and lack of shelter could prove almost as deadly as the cyclone itself. And estimates of how many people were killed by the storm and an accompanying tidal surge could spiral far higher.
only option D says May 2 and 3 - killing tens of thousands of people and leaving hundreds of thousands more homeless.
Cleaning up after a catastrophe is hard work in any country - witness the debacle that followed Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. But few places are less prepared than the isolated, desperately poor nation of 53 million that is Burma. Ruled by a clique of reclusive generals since 1962, Burma, also known as Myanmar, has degenerated from a resource-rich country, which upon independence from the British 60 years ago was hailed as a model for modern Asia into an economic disaster zone. __________ Medical experts warn that filthy water, poor sanitation and lack of shelter could prove almost as deadly as the cyclone itself. And estimates of how many people were killed by the storm and an accompanying tidal surge could spiral far higher. (1) For centuries, the paths of planets and vagaries of weather have been scrutinized by astrologers who drive a relationship between celestial irregularities and earthly mayhem. (2) Burma now faces one of the world's worst health systems, a worrisome situation as diseases fester in the wake of the devastating cyclone - Nargis. (3) The scene of devastation has reached apocalyptic levels as aerial photos of the Irrawaddy delta, Burma's rice bowl, show much of the region, still inundated by a vast surge of muddy water. (4) The cyclone tore across the country on May 2 and 3 - killing tens of thousands of people and leaving hundreds of thousands more homeless. (5) A senior U.S. diplomat in Burma, said the death toll could exceed 100,000, nearly five times the junta's estimate at the time.
Please also post the source of this question.. i hope the source is not a TIMES Magazine Article Center of The Storm - TIME
the answer according to this is B... but i still feel that the deadly cyclone needs to be backed up by data... and seemingly option 4 is also present in the article...
kapur arnav..though it's not from time magazine publication..the article has been taken from a mock paper which also goes by the name of the mag :lookround:.
The solitary condition of watching movies hasn't changed-if anything, DVD probably means that we are more often literally on our own when we watch films-but the movie world has lost some of its love for loners. Even CGI fantasies like the Toy Story films and the Lord of the Rings cycle are about teamwork. So if it is going too far to say that movies are more liberal than they were, they are at any rate less socially empty. Reality, it seems, no longer "pops you out of the story," as they say in Hollywood. We don't mind seeing it now and again on the big screen, especially if our daily lives don't always feel that real. _________________________
(1) One of the biggies was Traffic, a film about duplicity in the US war on drugs that won four Oscars for Steven Gaghan as screenwriter. (2) Erin Brockovich was about a single mother who takes on and beats a corporation, for which Julia Roberts won her Oscar. (3) The political strain in cinema was there then-it always has been, the question is whether it will only ever be a strain. (4) But to put this in perspective, it is worth looking back to the 2001 Oscars to see what was nominated in the year before 9/11.----it signals our perspective for the love for the films before reality actually was depicted on Big Screens , so author requests us to acknowledge the field of cinema before 9/11 (5) The MP4 format is becoming more popular.
The solitary condition of watching movies hasnt changedif anything, DVD probably means that we are more often literally on our own when we watch filmsbut the movie world has lost some of its love for loners. Even CGI fantasies like the Toy Story films and the Lord of the Rings cycle are about teamwork. So if it is going too far to say that movies are more liberal than they were, they are at any rate less socially empty. Reality, it seems, no longer pops you out of the story, as they say in Hollywood. We dont mind seeing it now and again on the big screen, especially if our daily lives dont always feel that real. _________________________
(1) One of the biggies was Traffic, a film about duplicity in the US war on drugs that won four Oscars for Steven Gaghan as screenwriter.------This is relatively better option. (2) Erin Brockovich was about a single mother who takes on and beats a corporation, for which Julia Roberts won her Oscar.------ doesn't connect with flow. (3) The political strain in cinema was there thenit always has been, the question is whether it will only ever be a strain.------- no mention of any poltical influence in the paragraph (4) But to put this in perspective, it is worth looking back to the 2001 Oscars to see what was nominated in the year before 9/11.------ the 9/11 issue has nothing to do with the theme of sentence (5) The MP4 format is becoming more popular.----- not at all connected to the current theme
ps: Pl. justify the answer you pick
IMO A.
Please post the OA and Source of the question.
Do we expect these type of questions(Sentence Completion) in GMAT?
The solitary condition of watching movies hasnt changedif anything, DVD probably means that we are more often literally on our own when we watch filmsbut the movie world has lost some of its love for loners. Even CGI fantasies like the Toy Story films and the Lord of the Rings cycle are about teamwork. So if it is going too far to say that movies are more liberal than they were, they are at any rate less socially empty. Reality, it seems, no longer pops you out of the story, as they say in Hollywood. We dont mind seeing it now and again on the big screen, especially if our daily lives dont always feel that real. _________________________
(1) One of the biggies was Traffic, a film about duplicity in the US war on drugs that won four Oscars for Steven Gaghan as screenwriter. (2) Erin Brockovich was about a single mother who takes on and beats a corporation, for which Julia Roberts won her Oscar. (3) The political strain in cinema was there thenit always has been, the question is whether it will only ever be a strain. (4) But to put this in perspective, it is worth looking back to the 2001 Oscars to see what was nominated in the year before 9/11. (5) The MP4 format is becoming more popular.
I want help on one of the OG questions : Life expectancy is the average age at death of the entire live-born population. In the middle of the nineteenth century, life expectancy in North America was 40 years, whereas now it is nearly 80 years. Thus, in those days, people must have been considered old at an age that we now consider the prime of life.
Which of the following, if true, undermines the argument above?
(A) In the middle of the nineteenth century, the population of North America was significantly smaller than it is today. (B) Most of the gains in life expectancy in the last 150 years have come from reductions in the number of infants who die in their first year of life. (C) Many of the people who live to an advanced age today do so only because of medical technology that was unknown in the nineteenth century. (D) The proportion of people who die in their seventies is significantly smaller today than is the proportion of people who die in their eighties. (E) More people in the middle of the nineteenth century engaged regularly in vigorous physical activity than do so today.
The correct option is :
B
I thought A was good.
The explanation for the option A is given as - "The size of the population is irrelevant to the argument" . I don't get it .How can the population be irrelevant.If the population in the nineteenth century was more than the population at present , then the avg. age at death in the nineteenth century should be greater than the avg. age at death at present.
Is it assumed here that the population in both the times is CONSTANT.
I want help on one of the OG questions : "Life expectancy" is the average age at death of the entire live-born population. In the middle of the nineteenth century, life expectancy in North America was 40 years, whereas now it is nearly 80 years. Thus, in those days, people must have been considered old at an age that we now consider the prime of life.
Which of the following, if true, undermines the argument above?
(A) In the middle of the nineteenth century, the population of North America was significantly smaller than it is today. (B) Most of the gains in life expectancy in the last 150 years have come from reductions in the number of infants who die in their first year of life. (C) Many of the people who live to an advanced age today do so only because of medical technology that was unknown in the nineteenth century. (D) The proportion of people who die in their seventies is significantly smaller today than is the proportion of people who die in their eighties. (E) More people in the middle of the nineteenth century engaged regularly in vigorous physical activity than do so today.
The correct option is :
B
I thought A was good.
The explanation for the option A is given as - "The size of the population is irrelevant to the argument" . I don't get it .How can the population be irrelevant.If the population in the nineteenth century was more than the population at present , then the avg. age at death in the nineteenth century should be greater than the avg. age at death at present.
Is it assumed here that the population in both the times is CONSTANT.
to increase the average from 40yrs to 80yrs : No. of deaths of those who die near and more than 80yrs. should rise or no. of deaths of infants who die below 1 yr. should INCREASE (w.r.t. increase in population)
Argument : Increase in the avg. was due to increase in no. of people who are old with increase in population. To undermine this we need to prove increase in avg. was due to reduction in deaths of infants below 1yr. therby lifting the avg. and not because of increase in old population.
Now option A) says popu. in middle of 19th century was significantly smaller but no data of infants/adults/old ages is given
B) points that even though popu. Has increased , avg. has increased because of reduction in below 1yr. infant deaths and not increase in old age,so we can't say for sure that "people must have been considered old at an age that we now consider the prime of life"
C)irrelevant D)compares only 70s and 80s only E)irrelevant
I want help on one of the OG questions : Life expectancy is the average age at death of the entire live-born population. In the middle of the nineteenth century, life expectancy in North America was 40 years, whereas now it is nearly 80 years. Thus, in those days, people must have been considered old at an age that we now consider the prime of life.
Which of the following, if true, undermines the argument above?
(A) In the middle of the nineteenth century, the population of North America was significantly smaller than it is today. (B) Most of the gains in life expectancy in the last 150 years have come from reductions in the number of infants who die in their first year of life. (C) Many of the people who live to an advanced age today do so only because of medical technology that was unknown in the nineteenth century. (D) The proportion of people who die in their seventies is significantly smaller today than is the proportion of people who die in their eighties. (E) More people in the middle of the nineteenth century engaged regularly in vigorous physical activity than do so today.
The correct option is :
B
I thought A was good.
The explanation for the option A is given as - "The size of the population is irrelevant to the argument" . I don't get it .How can the population be irrelevant.If the population in the nineteenth century was more than the population at present , then the avg. age at death in the nineteenth century should be greater than the avg. age at death at present.
Is it assumed here that the population in both the times is CONSTANT.
i remember i marked this qstn "c" whereas the ans was "b".
later on what i inferred..was quite relevant if u look from simple average point of view.
