CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  In 1893, Theodore Roosevelt published an arti... Start Learning for Free
In 1893, Theodore Roosevelt published an article in defense of college football. As player injuries mounted, some critics had called for a ban on the game. Nonsense, the future president wrote. "It is mere unmanly folly to try to do away with the sport because the risk exists." Instead, he argued, reform football to "minimize" its dangers.
Sound familiar? As millions of American boys and young men take to our football fields this fall, there's lots of talk about making the game safer. We've seen new rules on tackling, stronger penalties for infractions and time limits on practices. But it's unlikely that these changes will significantly reduce injuries. For the last century, schools and colleges have tried to modify the game so fewer people get hurt. And it hasn't worked.
The first changes took place in the early 1900s. Before that time the game resembled rugby, with players piling on top of one another to control the ball. They could pass it sideways or backward but not forward.
The results were predictable: smashed noses, dislocated shoulders, broken necks and fractured skulls. Dozens of young men died, mostly from cerebral hemorrhage. "The sight of a confused mass of educated young men making batter-rams of their bodies, plunging their heads into each other's stomachs, piling upon each other or maiming each other for life — sometimes indeed … killing each other … is to me a brutal monstrosity," declared Cornell President Andrew D. White in 1891.
Fourteen years later, having ascended to the White House, Roosevelt convened a meeting of coaches from Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Amid newspaper reports of 18 football deaths that fall, the 1905 meeting set in motion a series of reforms to protect players from injury — and to guard the sport from critics who wanted to end it altogether.
The most controversial innovation was the forward pass, which would spread players more widely and decrease the amount of contact between them. But the leading opponent of the reform, Yale coach Walter Camp, warned that players streaking downfield would face even greater danger than the ones clumped together near the line of scrimmage. Camp turned out to be correct.
The recent increase of concussions — at every level of the sport — is partly due to "pass-first" offenses, which have led to more high-speed collisions. By stopping the game clock for incompletions, passing has also increased the total number of plays and, with it, the opportunities for injury.
Ditto for helmets, another reform designed to reduce harm on the field. In the early years of the game, some players grew their hair long to provide a modicum of head protection. Others began to wear leather helmets, which were developed by an Annapolis shoemaker to protect a Navy midshipman after the player's doctor told him that he might die from another hit to his head.
Enter the plastic helmet, which provided more cushioning. But it also became a weapon in its own right, allowing players to "lead with their heads" as they tackled. Despite new restrictions on that practice, helmet-to-helmet hits remain one of the key causes of concussions and other injuries.
And the most common victims are kids, who are starting football at ever-younger ages. Their necks aren't fully developed, so they can't brace for a hit the way adults can. And their braincases haven't finished hardening, which makes their skulls more vulnerable to impact.
By the time they get to high school, kids have a 5% chance of sustaining a concussion for each season they play. And as a 2011 study showed, former football players who sustained two or more concussions in their youth have a significantly higher rate of cognitive impairment as adults.
The issue made its way back to the White House in May, when President Obama convened a meeting of coaches, doctors and scientists to discuss sports-related concussions. But the most powerful voice in the room was one that didn't exist back in Roosevelt's time: the National Football League.
A judge recently approved a settlement to compensate retired NFL players suffering the effects of head injuries that is likely to cost the league several hundred million dollars. It also announced this year that it would donate $45 million to the youth organization it founded, USA Football, in part to expand safety training for coaches.
As the richest sports enterprise in America, the NFL can absorb almost any legal hit that comes its way. But our high schools can't. And the league needs them to continue sponsoring football teams, which — alongside college squads — are the main training system for the pros.
If he had a son, the president said last year, he'd "have to think long and hard" before letting him play football. But the rest of us need to think long and hard too about why we're putting so many kids at risk to subsidize a league that's already awash in money. And if we think we can wash away the risk, we're kidding ourselves.
According to the passage, the chance of a kid suffering a concussion by the time they get to high school is:
  • a)
    5%
  • b)
    7%
  • c)
    10%
  • d)
    cannot be determined from the passage
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Verified Answer
In 1893, Theodore Roosevelt published an article in defense of college...
Remember, the passage quotes that 5% is the chance of a kid who plays football suffering a concussion by the time they get to high school is. The passage does not provide the general figure all kids (as asked in the question).
View all questions of this test
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.While sabbaticals are still rare inside of corporate America, their presence is increasing rapidly. According to a survey from the Society for Human Resource Management, the percentage of companies offering sabbaticals (both paid and unpai d) rose to nearly 17% of employers in 2017. That's a significant gain from 1977, when McDonald's instituted what was arguably the first corporate sabbatical program in the United States.Since the concept of sabbaticals is most popular in the academic arena, the majority of research done on their effect on employees has been conducted by studying professors. One notable study compared 129 university professors who took a sabbatical in a given term with 129 equally qualified colleagues who didn't. Both groups were surveyed before, during, and after the term to assess stress levels, psychological resources, and even overall life satisfaction. It's not surprising that the researchers found that those who took sabbaticals experienced, upon return, a decline in stress and an increase in psychological resources and overall well-being. What is surprising, however, is that those positive changes often remained long after the sabbatical takers returned to work.The bigger benefit to organizations, however, comes in unexpected ways. Providing sabbaticals or extended leave time to leaders can actually be a means to stress test the organizational chart and give aspiring leaders a chance to grow. In one study, researchers surveyed 61 leaders at five different non-profit organizations with sabbatical programs. Each organization had slightly different requirements, but all required at least three months off and discouraged executives from visiting the office during the sabbatical period.The researchers found that the majority of leaders surveyed said the time away allowed them the space to generate new ideas for innovating in the organization and helped them gain greater confidence in themselves as leaders. They also reported a better ability to collaborate with their board of directors, most likely because the planning and execution of the sabbatical provided a learning experience for everyone involved.At the very least, having people rotate out for an extended period of time allows organizations to stress test their organizational chart. Ideally, no team should be so dependent on any one person that productivity grinds to a halt during an extended vacation. And while it may look good on paper, the only way to know for sure is to test it. For instance, there are many unique vacation/sabbatical policies out there: The Motley Fool's approach, called "The Fool's Errand." Each month leadership of The Motley Fool draws a random name from the company roster and awards that person two weeks of paid time off with a catch: It must be taken in the next month.Whether it's a long-term sabbatical or a surprise vacation, the success of extended time off - for the organization - is an encouragement and a warning. The warning is that most organizations are probably not giving employees enough time away.Q. Whether it's a long-term sabbatical or a surprise vacation, the success of extended time off - for the organization - is an encouragement and a warning. The warning is that most organizations are probably not giving employees enough time away.It can be inferred that the author could have extended the last paragraph to include how many of the following statements? The encouragement is that extended time pays off. How seriously companies take this warning, is yet to be seen. Rewarding sabbatical to employees increases the productivity of the company. The pros of rewarding sabbatical to employees far outweigh the cons.

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.While sabbaticals are still rare inside of corporate America, their presence is increasing rapidly. According to a survey from the Society for Human Resource Management, the percentage of companies offering sabbaticals (both paid and unpai d) rose to nearly 17% of employers in 2017. That's a significant gain from 1977, when McDonald's instituted what was arguably the first corporate sabbatical program in the United States.Since the concept of sabbaticals is most popular in the academic arena, the majority of research done on their effect on employees has been conducted by studying professors. One notable study compared 129 university professors who took a sabbatical in a given term with 129 equally qualified colleagues who didn't. Both groups were surveyed before, during, and after the term to assess stress levels, psychological resources, and even overall life satisfaction. It's not surprising that the researchers found that those who took sabbaticals experienced, upon return, a decline in stress and an increase in psychological resources and overall well-being. What is surprising, however, is that those positive changes often remained long after the sabbatical takers returned to work.The bigger benefit to organizations, however, comes in unexpected ways. Providing sabbaticals or extended leave time to leaders can actually be a means to stress test the organizational chart and give aspiring leaders a chance to grow. In one study, researchers surveyed 61 leaders at five different non-profit organizations with sabbatical programs. Each organization had slightly different requirements, but all required at least three months off and discouraged executives from visiting the office during the sabbatical period.The researchers found that the majority of leaders surveyed said the time away allowed them the space to generate new ideas for innovating in the organization and helped them gain greater confidence in themselves as leaders. They also reported a better ability to collaborate with their board of directors, most likely because the planning and execution of the sabbatical provided a learning experience for everyone involved.At the very least, having people rotate out for an extended period of time allows organizations to stress test their organizational chart. Ideally, no team should be so dependent on any one person that productivity grinds to a halt during an extended vacation. And while it may look good on paper, the only way to know for sure is to test it. For instance, there are many unique vacation/sabbatical policies out there: The Motley Fool's approach, called "The Fool's Errand." Each month leadership of The Motley Fool draws a random name from the company roster and awards that person two weeks of paid time off with a catch: It must be taken in the next month.Whether it's a long-term sabbatical or a surprise vacation, the success of extended time off - for the organization - is an encouragement and a warning. The warning is that most organizations are probably not giving employees enough time away.Q. The tone of the author in the passage can best be described as

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience.Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavorably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitmentwill depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.The hypothesis mentioned in the passage tests at least one of the following ideas.

Top Courses for CAT

In 1893, Theodore Roosevelt published an article in defense of college football. As player injuries mounted, some critics had called for a ban on the game. Nonsense, the future president wrote. "It is mere unmanly folly to try to do away with the sport because the risk exists." Instead, he argued, reform football to "minimize" its dangers.Sound familiar? As millions of American boys and young men take to our football fields this fall, there's lots of talk about making the game safer. We've seen new rules on tackling, stronger penalties for infractions and time limits on practices. But it's unlikely that these changes will significantly reduce injuries. For the last century, schools and colleges have tried to modify the game so fewer people get hurt. And it hasn't worked.The first changes took place in the early 1900s. Before that time the game resembled rugby, with players piling on top of one another to control the ball. They could pass it sideways or backward but not forward.The results were predictable: smashed noses, dislocated shoulders, broken necks and fractured skulls. Dozens of young men died, mostly from cerebral hemorrhage. "The sight of a confused mass of educated young men making batter-rams of their bodies, plunging their heads into each other's stomachs, piling upon each other or maiming each other for life — sometimes indeed … killing each other … is to me a brutal monstrosity," declared Cornell President Andrew D. White in 1891.Fourteen years later, having ascended to the White House, Roosevelt convened a meeting of coaches from Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Amid newspaper reports of 18 football deaths that fall, the 1905 meeting set in motion a series of reforms to protect players from injury — and to guard the sport from critics who wanted to end it altogether.The most controversial innovation was the forward pass, which would spread players more widely and decrease the amount of contact between them. But the leading opponent of the reform, Yale coach Walter Camp, warned that players streaking downfield would face even greater danger than the ones clumped together near the line of scrimmage. Camp turned out to be correct.The recent increase of concussions — at every level of the sport — is partly due to "pass-first" offenses, which have led to more high-speed collisions. By stopping the game clock for incompletions, passing has also increased the total number of plays and, with it, the opportunities for injury.Ditto for helmets, another reform designed to reduce harm on the field. In the early years of the game, some players grew their hair long to provide a modicum of head protection. Others began to wear leather helmets, which were developed by an Annapolis shoemaker to protect a Navy midshipman after the player's doctor told him that he might die from another hit to his head.Enter the plastic helmet, which provided more cushioning. But it also became a weapon in its own right, allowing players to "lead with their heads" as they tackled. Despite new restrictions on that practice, helmet-to-helmet hits remain one of the key causes of concussions and other injuries.And the most common victims are kids, who are starting football at ever-younger ages. Their necks aren't fully developed, so they can't brace for a hit the way adults can. And their braincases haven't finished hardening, which makes their skulls more vulnerable to impact.By the time they get to high school, kids have a 5% chance of sustaining a concussion for each season they play. And as a 2011 study showed, former football players who sustained two or more concussions in their youth have a significantly higher rate of cognitive impairment as adults.The issue made its way back to the White House in May, when President Obama convened a meeting of coaches, doctors and scientists to discuss sports-related concussions. But the most powerful voice in the room was one that didn't exist back in Roosevelt's time: the National Football League.A judge recently approved a settlement to compensate retired NFL players suffering the effects of head injuries that is likely to cost the league several hundred million dollars. It also announced this year that it would donate $45 million to the youth organization it founded, USA Football, in part to expand safety training for coaches.As the richest sports enterprise in America, the NFL can absorb almost any legal hit that comes its way. But our high schools can't. And the league needs them to continue sponsoring football teams, which — alongside college squads — are the main training system for the pros.If he had a son, the president said last year, he'd "have to think long and hard" before letting him play football. But the rest of us need to think long and hard too about why we're putting so many kids at risk to subsidize a league that's already awash in money. And if we think we can wash away the risk, we're kidding ourselves.According to the passage, the chance of a kid suffering a concussion by the time they get to high school is:a)5%b)7%c)10%d)cannot be determined from the passageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
In 1893, Theodore Roosevelt published an article in defense of college football. As player injuries mounted, some critics had called for a ban on the game. Nonsense, the future president wrote. "It is mere unmanly folly to try to do away with the sport because the risk exists." Instead, he argued, reform football to "minimize" its dangers.Sound familiar? As millions of American boys and young men take to our football fields this fall, there's lots of talk about making the game safer. We've seen new rules on tackling, stronger penalties for infractions and time limits on practices. But it's unlikely that these changes will significantly reduce injuries. For the last century, schools and colleges have tried to modify the game so fewer people get hurt. And it hasn't worked.The first changes took place in the early 1900s. Before that time the game resembled rugby, with players piling on top of one another to control the ball. They could pass it sideways or backward but not forward.The results were predictable: smashed noses, dislocated shoulders, broken necks and fractured skulls. Dozens of young men died, mostly from cerebral hemorrhage. "The sight of a confused mass of educated young men making batter-rams of their bodies, plunging their heads into each other's stomachs, piling upon each other or maiming each other for life — sometimes indeed … killing each other … is to me a brutal monstrosity," declared Cornell President Andrew D. White in 1891.Fourteen years later, having ascended to the White House, Roosevelt convened a meeting of coaches from Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Amid newspaper reports of 18 football deaths that fall, the 1905 meeting set in motion a series of reforms to protect players from injury — and to guard the sport from critics who wanted to end it altogether.The most controversial innovation was the forward pass, which would spread players more widely and decrease the amount of contact between them. But the leading opponent of the reform, Yale coach Walter Camp, warned that players streaking downfield would face even greater danger than the ones clumped together near the line of scrimmage. Camp turned out to be correct.The recent increase of concussions — at every level of the sport — is partly due to "pass-first" offenses, which have led to more high-speed collisions. By stopping the game clock for incompletions, passing has also increased the total number of plays and, with it, the opportunities for injury.Ditto for helmets, another reform designed to reduce harm on the field. In the early years of the game, some players grew their hair long to provide a modicum of head protection. Others began to wear leather helmets, which were developed by an Annapolis shoemaker to protect a Navy midshipman after the player's doctor told him that he might die from another hit to his head.Enter the plastic helmet, which provided more cushioning. But it also became a weapon in its own right, allowing players to "lead with their heads" as they tackled. Despite new restrictions on that practice, helmet-to-helmet hits remain one of the key causes of concussions and other injuries.And the most common victims are kids, who are starting football at ever-younger ages. Their necks aren't fully developed, so they can't brace for a hit the way adults can. And their braincases haven't finished hardening, which makes their skulls more vulnerable to impact.By the time they get to high school, kids have a 5% chance of sustaining a concussion for each season they play. And as a 2011 study showed, former football players who sustained two or more concussions in their youth have a significantly higher rate of cognitive impairment as adults.The issue made its way back to the White House in May, when President Obama convened a meeting of coaches, doctors and scientists to discuss sports-related concussions. But the most powerful voice in the room was one that didn't exist back in Roosevelt's time: the National Football League.A judge recently approved a settlement to compensate retired NFL players suffering the effects of head injuries that is likely to cost the league several hundred million dollars. It also announced this year that it would donate $45 million to the youth organization it founded, USA Football, in part to expand safety training for coaches.As the richest sports enterprise in America, the NFL can absorb almost any legal hit that comes its way. But our high schools can't. And the league needs them to continue sponsoring football teams, which — alongside college squads — are the main training system for the pros.If he had a son, the president said last year, he'd "have to think long and hard" before letting him play football. But the rest of us need to think long and hard too about why we're putting so many kids at risk to subsidize a league that's already awash in money. And if we think we can wash away the risk, we're kidding ourselves.According to the passage, the chance of a kid suffering a concussion by the time they get to high school is:a)5%b)7%c)10%d)cannot be determined from the passageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about In 1893, Theodore Roosevelt published an article in defense of college football. As player injuries mounted, some critics had called for a ban on the game. Nonsense, the future president wrote. "It is mere unmanly folly to try to do away with the sport because the risk exists." Instead, he argued, reform football to "minimize" its dangers.Sound familiar? As millions of American boys and young men take to our football fields this fall, there's lots of talk about making the game safer. We've seen new rules on tackling, stronger penalties for infractions and time limits on practices. But it's unlikely that these changes will significantly reduce injuries. For the last century, schools and colleges have tried to modify the game so fewer people get hurt. And it hasn't worked.The first changes took place in the early 1900s. Before that time the game resembled rugby, with players piling on top of one another to control the ball. They could pass it sideways or backward but not forward.The results were predictable: smashed noses, dislocated shoulders, broken necks and fractured skulls. Dozens of young men died, mostly from cerebral hemorrhage. "The sight of a confused mass of educated young men making batter-rams of their bodies, plunging their heads into each other's stomachs, piling upon each other or maiming each other for life — sometimes indeed … killing each other … is to me a brutal monstrosity," declared Cornell President Andrew D. White in 1891.Fourteen years later, having ascended to the White House, Roosevelt convened a meeting of coaches from Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Amid newspaper reports of 18 football deaths that fall, the 1905 meeting set in motion a series of reforms to protect players from injury — and to guard the sport from critics who wanted to end it altogether.The most controversial innovation was the forward pass, which would spread players more widely and decrease the amount of contact between them. But the leading opponent of the reform, Yale coach Walter Camp, warned that players streaking downfield would face even greater danger than the ones clumped together near the line of scrimmage. Camp turned out to be correct.The recent increase of concussions — at every level of the sport — is partly due to "pass-first" offenses, which have led to more high-speed collisions. By stopping the game clock for incompletions, passing has also increased the total number of plays and, with it, the opportunities for injury.Ditto for helmets, another reform designed to reduce harm on the field. In the early years of the game, some players grew their hair long to provide a modicum of head protection. Others began to wear leather helmets, which were developed by an Annapolis shoemaker to protect a Navy midshipman after the player's doctor told him that he might die from another hit to his head.Enter the plastic helmet, which provided more cushioning. But it also became a weapon in its own right, allowing players to "lead with their heads" as they tackled. Despite new restrictions on that practice, helmet-to-helmet hits remain one of the key causes of concussions and other injuries.And the most common victims are kids, who are starting football at ever-younger ages. Their necks aren't fully developed, so they can't brace for a hit the way adults can. And their braincases haven't finished hardening, which makes their skulls more vulnerable to impact.By the time they get to high school, kids have a 5% chance of sustaining a concussion for each season they play. And as a 2011 study showed, former football players who sustained two or more concussions in their youth have a significantly higher rate of cognitive impairment as adults.The issue made its way back to the White House in May, when President Obama convened a meeting of coaches, doctors and scientists to discuss sports-related concussions. But the most powerful voice in the room was one that didn't exist back in Roosevelt's time: the National Football League.A judge recently approved a settlement to compensate retired NFL players suffering the effects of head injuries that is likely to cost the league several hundred million dollars. It also announced this year that it would donate $45 million to the youth organization it founded, USA Football, in part to expand safety training for coaches.As the richest sports enterprise in America, the NFL can absorb almost any legal hit that comes its way. But our high schools can't. And the league needs them to continue sponsoring football teams, which — alongside college squads — are the main training system for the pros.If he had a son, the president said last year, he'd "have to think long and hard" before letting him play football. But the rest of us need to think long and hard too about why we're putting so many kids at risk to subsidize a league that's already awash in money. And if we think we can wash away the risk, we're kidding ourselves.According to the passage, the chance of a kid suffering a concussion by the time they get to high school is:a)5%b)7%c)10%d)cannot be determined from the passageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for In 1893, Theodore Roosevelt published an article in defense of college football. As player injuries mounted, some critics had called for a ban on the game. Nonsense, the future president wrote. "It is mere unmanly folly to try to do away with the sport because the risk exists." Instead, he argued, reform football to "minimize" its dangers.Sound familiar? As millions of American boys and young men take to our football fields this fall, there's lots of talk about making the game safer. We've seen new rules on tackling, stronger penalties for infractions and time limits on practices. But it's unlikely that these changes will significantly reduce injuries. For the last century, schools and colleges have tried to modify the game so fewer people get hurt. And it hasn't worked.The first changes took place in the early 1900s. Before that time the game resembled rugby, with players piling on top of one another to control the ball. They could pass it sideways or backward but not forward.The results were predictable: smashed noses, dislocated shoulders, broken necks and fractured skulls. Dozens of young men died, mostly from cerebral hemorrhage. "The sight of a confused mass of educated young men making batter-rams of their bodies, plunging their heads into each other's stomachs, piling upon each other or maiming each other for life — sometimes indeed … killing each other … is to me a brutal monstrosity," declared Cornell President Andrew D. White in 1891.Fourteen years later, having ascended to the White House, Roosevelt convened a meeting of coaches from Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Amid newspaper reports of 18 football deaths that fall, the 1905 meeting set in motion a series of reforms to protect players from injury — and to guard the sport from critics who wanted to end it altogether.The most controversial innovation was the forward pass, which would spread players more widely and decrease the amount of contact between them. But the leading opponent of the reform, Yale coach Walter Camp, warned that players streaking downfield would face even greater danger than the ones clumped together near the line of scrimmage. Camp turned out to be correct.The recent increase of concussions — at every level of the sport — is partly due to "pass-first" offenses, which have led to more high-speed collisions. By stopping the game clock for incompletions, passing has also increased the total number of plays and, with it, the opportunities for injury.Ditto for helmets, another reform designed to reduce harm on the field. In the early years of the game, some players grew their hair long to provide a modicum of head protection. Others began to wear leather helmets, which were developed by an Annapolis shoemaker to protect a Navy midshipman after the player's doctor told him that he might die from another hit to his head.Enter the plastic helmet, which provided more cushioning. But it also became a weapon in its own right, allowing players to "lead with their heads" as they tackled. Despite new restrictions on that practice, helmet-to-helmet hits remain one of the key causes of concussions and other injuries.And the most common victims are kids, who are starting football at ever-younger ages. Their necks aren't fully developed, so they can't brace for a hit the way adults can. And their braincases haven't finished hardening, which makes their skulls more vulnerable to impact.By the time they get to high school, kids have a 5% chance of sustaining a concussion for each season they play. And as a 2011 study showed, former football players who sustained two or more concussions in their youth have a significantly higher rate of cognitive impairment as adults.The issue made its way back to the White House in May, when President Obama convened a meeting of coaches, doctors and scientists to discuss sports-related concussions. But the most powerful voice in the room was one that didn't exist back in Roosevelt's time: the National Football League.A judge recently approved a settlement to compensate retired NFL players suffering the effects of head injuries that is likely to cost the league several hundred million dollars. It also announced this year that it would donate $45 million to the youth organization it founded, USA Football, in part to expand safety training for coaches.As the richest sports enterprise in America, the NFL can absorb almost any legal hit that comes its way. But our high schools can't. And the league needs them to continue sponsoring football teams, which — alongside college squads — are the main training system for the pros.If he had a son, the president said last year, he'd "have to think long and hard" before letting him play football. But the rest of us need to think long and hard too about why we're putting so many kids at risk to subsidize a league that's already awash in money. And if we think we can wash away the risk, we're kidding ourselves.According to the passage, the chance of a kid suffering a concussion by the time they get to high school is:a)5%b)7%c)10%d)cannot be determined from the passageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for In 1893, Theodore Roosevelt published an article in defense of college football. As player injuries mounted, some critics had called for a ban on the game. Nonsense, the future president wrote. "It is mere unmanly folly to try to do away with the sport because the risk exists." Instead, he argued, reform football to "minimize" its dangers.Sound familiar? As millions of American boys and young men take to our football fields this fall, there's lots of talk about making the game safer. We've seen new rules on tackling, stronger penalties for infractions and time limits on practices. But it's unlikely that these changes will significantly reduce injuries. For the last century, schools and colleges have tried to modify the game so fewer people get hurt. And it hasn't worked.The first changes took place in the early 1900s. Before that time the game resembled rugby, with players piling on top of one another to control the ball. They could pass it sideways or backward but not forward.The results were predictable: smashed noses, dislocated shoulders, broken necks and fractured skulls. Dozens of young men died, mostly from cerebral hemorrhage. "The sight of a confused mass of educated young men making batter-rams of their bodies, plunging their heads into each other's stomachs, piling upon each other or maiming each other for life — sometimes indeed … killing each other … is to me a brutal monstrosity," declared Cornell President Andrew D. White in 1891.Fourteen years later, having ascended to the White House, Roosevelt convened a meeting of coaches from Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Amid newspaper reports of 18 football deaths that fall, the 1905 meeting set in motion a series of reforms to protect players from injury — and to guard the sport from critics who wanted to end it altogether.The most controversial innovation was the forward pass, which would spread players more widely and decrease the amount of contact between them. But the leading opponent of the reform, Yale coach Walter Camp, warned that players streaking downfield would face even greater danger than the ones clumped together near the line of scrimmage. Camp turned out to be correct.The recent increase of concussions — at every level of the sport — is partly due to "pass-first" offenses, which have led to more high-speed collisions. By stopping the game clock for incompletions, passing has also increased the total number of plays and, with it, the opportunities for injury.Ditto for helmets, another reform designed to reduce harm on the field. In the early years of the game, some players grew their hair long to provide a modicum of head protection. Others began to wear leather helmets, which were developed by an Annapolis shoemaker to protect a Navy midshipman after the player's doctor told him that he might die from another hit to his head.Enter the plastic helmet, which provided more cushioning. But it also became a weapon in its own right, allowing players to "lead with their heads" as they tackled. Despite new restrictions on that practice, helmet-to-helmet hits remain one of the key causes of concussions and other injuries.And the most common victims are kids, who are starting football at ever-younger ages. Their necks aren't fully developed, so they can't brace for a hit the way adults can. And their braincases haven't finished hardening, which makes their skulls more vulnerable to impact.By the time they get to high school, kids have a 5% chance of sustaining a concussion for each season they play. And as a 2011 study showed, former football players who sustained two or more concussions in their youth have a significantly higher rate of cognitive impairment as adults.The issue made its way back to the White House in May, when President Obama convened a meeting of coaches, doctors and scientists to discuss sports-related concussions. But the most powerful voice in the room was one that didn't exist back in Roosevelt's time: the National Football League.A judge recently approved a settlement to compensate retired NFL players suffering the effects of head injuries that is likely to cost the league several hundred million dollars. It also announced this year that it would donate $45 million to the youth organization it founded, USA Football, in part to expand safety training for coaches.As the richest sports enterprise in America, the NFL can absorb almost any legal hit that comes its way. But our high schools can't. And the league needs them to continue sponsoring football teams, which — alongside college squads — are the main training system for the pros.If he had a son, the president said last year, he'd "have to think long and hard" before letting him play football. But the rest of us need to think long and hard too about why we're putting so many kids at risk to subsidize a league that's already awash in money. And if we think we can wash away the risk, we're kidding ourselves.According to the passage, the chance of a kid suffering a concussion by the time they get to high school is:a)5%b)7%c)10%d)cannot be determined from the passageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of In 1893, Theodore Roosevelt published an article in defense of college football. As player injuries mounted, some critics had called for a ban on the game. Nonsense, the future president wrote. "It is mere unmanly folly to try to do away with the sport because the risk exists." Instead, he argued, reform football to "minimize" its dangers.Sound familiar? As millions of American boys and young men take to our football fields this fall, there's lots of talk about making the game safer. We've seen new rules on tackling, stronger penalties for infractions and time limits on practices. But it's unlikely that these changes will significantly reduce injuries. For the last century, schools and colleges have tried to modify the game so fewer people get hurt. And it hasn't worked.The first changes took place in the early 1900s. Before that time the game resembled rugby, with players piling on top of one another to control the ball. They could pass it sideways or backward but not forward.The results were predictable: smashed noses, dislocated shoulders, broken necks and fractured skulls. Dozens of young men died, mostly from cerebral hemorrhage. "The sight of a confused mass of educated young men making batter-rams of their bodies, plunging their heads into each other's stomachs, piling upon each other or maiming each other for life — sometimes indeed … killing each other … is to me a brutal monstrosity," declared Cornell President Andrew D. White in 1891.Fourteen years later, having ascended to the White House, Roosevelt convened a meeting of coaches from Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Amid newspaper reports of 18 football deaths that fall, the 1905 meeting set in motion a series of reforms to protect players from injury — and to guard the sport from critics who wanted to end it altogether.The most controversial innovation was the forward pass, which would spread players more widely and decrease the amount of contact between them. But the leading opponent of the reform, Yale coach Walter Camp, warned that players streaking downfield would face even greater danger than the ones clumped together near the line of scrimmage. Camp turned out to be correct.The recent increase of concussions — at every level of the sport — is partly due to "pass-first" offenses, which have led to more high-speed collisions. By stopping the game clock for incompletions, passing has also increased the total number of plays and, with it, the opportunities for injury.Ditto for helmets, another reform designed to reduce harm on the field. In the early years of the game, some players grew their hair long to provide a modicum of head protection. Others began to wear leather helmets, which were developed by an Annapolis shoemaker to protect a Navy midshipman after the player's doctor told him that he might die from another hit to his head.Enter the plastic helmet, which provided more cushioning. But it also became a weapon in its own right, allowing players to "lead with their heads" as they tackled. Despite new restrictions on that practice, helmet-to-helmet hits remain one of the key causes of concussions and other injuries.And the most common victims are kids, who are starting football at ever-younger ages. Their necks aren't fully developed, so they can't brace for a hit the way adults can. And their braincases haven't finished hardening, which makes their skulls more vulnerable to impact.By the time they get to high school, kids have a 5% chance of sustaining a concussion for each season they play. And as a 2011 study showed, former football players who sustained two or more concussions in their youth have a significantly higher rate of cognitive impairment as adults.The issue made its way back to the White House in May, when President Obama convened a meeting of coaches, doctors and scientists to discuss sports-related concussions. But the most powerful voice in the room was one that didn't exist back in Roosevelt's time: the National Football League.A judge recently approved a settlement to compensate retired NFL players suffering the effects of head injuries that is likely to cost the league several hundred million dollars. It also announced this year that it would donate $45 million to the youth organization it founded, USA Football, in part to expand safety training for coaches.As the richest sports enterprise in America, the NFL can absorb almost any legal hit that comes its way. But our high schools can't. And the league needs them to continue sponsoring football teams, which — alongside college squads — are the main training system for the pros.If he had a son, the president said last year, he'd "have to think long and hard" before letting him play football. But the rest of us need to think long and hard too about why we're putting so many kids at risk to subsidize a league that's already awash in money. And if we think we can wash away the risk, we're kidding ourselves.According to the passage, the chance of a kid suffering a concussion by the time they get to high school is:a)5%b)7%c)10%d)cannot be determined from the passageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of In 1893, Theodore Roosevelt published an article in defense of college football. As player injuries mounted, some critics had called for a ban on the game. Nonsense, the future president wrote. "It is mere unmanly folly to try to do away with the sport because the risk exists." Instead, he argued, reform football to "minimize" its dangers.Sound familiar? As millions of American boys and young men take to our football fields this fall, there's lots of talk about making the game safer. We've seen new rules on tackling, stronger penalties for infractions and time limits on practices. But it's unlikely that these changes will significantly reduce injuries. For the last century, schools and colleges have tried to modify the game so fewer people get hurt. And it hasn't worked.The first changes took place in the early 1900s. Before that time the game resembled rugby, with players piling on top of one another to control the ball. They could pass it sideways or backward but not forward.The results were predictable: smashed noses, dislocated shoulders, broken necks and fractured skulls. Dozens of young men died, mostly from cerebral hemorrhage. "The sight of a confused mass of educated young men making batter-rams of their bodies, plunging their heads into each other's stomachs, piling upon each other or maiming each other for life — sometimes indeed … killing each other … is to me a brutal monstrosity," declared Cornell President Andrew D. White in 1891.Fourteen years later, having ascended to the White House, Roosevelt convened a meeting of coaches from Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Amid newspaper reports of 18 football deaths that fall, the 1905 meeting set in motion a series of reforms to protect players from injury — and to guard the sport from critics who wanted to end it altogether.The most controversial innovation was the forward pass, which would spread players more widely and decrease the amount of contact between them. But the leading opponent of the reform, Yale coach Walter Camp, warned that players streaking downfield would face even greater danger than the ones clumped together near the line of scrimmage. Camp turned out to be correct.The recent increase of concussions — at every level of the sport — is partly due to "pass-first" offenses, which have led to more high-speed collisions. By stopping the game clock for incompletions, passing has also increased the total number of plays and, with it, the opportunities for injury.Ditto for helmets, another reform designed to reduce harm on the field. In the early years of the game, some players grew their hair long to provide a modicum of head protection. Others began to wear leather helmets, which were developed by an Annapolis shoemaker to protect a Navy midshipman after the player's doctor told him that he might die from another hit to his head.Enter the plastic helmet, which provided more cushioning. But it also became a weapon in its own right, allowing players to "lead with their heads" as they tackled. Despite new restrictions on that practice, helmet-to-helmet hits remain one of the key causes of concussions and other injuries.And the most common victims are kids, who are starting football at ever-younger ages. Their necks aren't fully developed, so they can't brace for a hit the way adults can. And their braincases haven't finished hardening, which makes their skulls more vulnerable to impact.By the time they get to high school, kids have a 5% chance of sustaining a concussion for each season they play. And as a 2011 study showed, former football players who sustained two or more concussions in their youth have a significantly higher rate of cognitive impairment as adults.The issue made its way back to the White House in May, when President Obama convened a meeting of coaches, doctors and scientists to discuss sports-related concussions. But the most powerful voice in the room was one that didn't exist back in Roosevelt's time: the National Football League.A judge recently approved a settlement to compensate retired NFL players suffering the effects of head injuries that is likely to cost the league several hundred million dollars. It also announced this year that it would donate $45 million to the youth organization it founded, USA Football, in part to expand safety training for coaches.As the richest sports enterprise in America, the NFL can absorb almost any legal hit that comes its way. But our high schools can't. And the league needs them to continue sponsoring football teams, which — alongside college squads — are the main training system for the pros.If he had a son, the president said last year, he'd "have to think long and hard" before letting him play football. But the rest of us need to think long and hard too about why we're putting so many kids at risk to subsidize a league that's already awash in money. And if we think we can wash away the risk, we're kidding ourselves.According to the passage, the chance of a kid suffering a concussion by the time they get to high school is:a)5%b)7%c)10%d)cannot be determined from the passageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for In 1893, Theodore Roosevelt published an article in defense of college football. As player injuries mounted, some critics had called for a ban on the game. Nonsense, the future president wrote. "It is mere unmanly folly to try to do away with the sport because the risk exists." Instead, he argued, reform football to "minimize" its dangers.Sound familiar? As millions of American boys and young men take to our football fields this fall, there's lots of talk about making the game safer. We've seen new rules on tackling, stronger penalties for infractions and time limits on practices. But it's unlikely that these changes will significantly reduce injuries. For the last century, schools and colleges have tried to modify the game so fewer people get hurt. And it hasn't worked.The first changes took place in the early 1900s. Before that time the game resembled rugby, with players piling on top of one another to control the ball. They could pass it sideways or backward but not forward.The results were predictable: smashed noses, dislocated shoulders, broken necks and fractured skulls. Dozens of young men died, mostly from cerebral hemorrhage. "The sight of a confused mass of educated young men making batter-rams of their bodies, plunging their heads into each other's stomachs, piling upon each other or maiming each other for life — sometimes indeed … killing each other … is to me a brutal monstrosity," declared Cornell President Andrew D. White in 1891.Fourteen years later, having ascended to the White House, Roosevelt convened a meeting of coaches from Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Amid newspaper reports of 18 football deaths that fall, the 1905 meeting set in motion a series of reforms to protect players from injury — and to guard the sport from critics who wanted to end it altogether.The most controversial innovation was the forward pass, which would spread players more widely and decrease the amount of contact between them. But the leading opponent of the reform, Yale coach Walter Camp, warned that players streaking downfield would face even greater danger than the ones clumped together near the line of scrimmage. Camp turned out to be correct.The recent increase of concussions — at every level of the sport — is partly due to "pass-first" offenses, which have led to more high-speed collisions. By stopping the game clock for incompletions, passing has also increased the total number of plays and, with it, the opportunities for injury.Ditto for helmets, another reform designed to reduce harm on the field. In the early years of the game, some players grew their hair long to provide a modicum of head protection. Others began to wear leather helmets, which were developed by an Annapolis shoemaker to protect a Navy midshipman after the player's doctor told him that he might die from another hit to his head.Enter the plastic helmet, which provided more cushioning. But it also became a weapon in its own right, allowing players to "lead with their heads" as they tackled. Despite new restrictions on that practice, helmet-to-helmet hits remain one of the key causes of concussions and other injuries.And the most common victims are kids, who are starting football at ever-younger ages. Their necks aren't fully developed, so they can't brace for a hit the way adults can. And their braincases haven't finished hardening, which makes their skulls more vulnerable to impact.By the time they get to high school, kids have a 5% chance of sustaining a concussion for each season they play. And as a 2011 study showed, former football players who sustained two or more concussions in their youth have a significantly higher rate of cognitive impairment as adults.The issue made its way back to the White House in May, when President Obama convened a meeting of coaches, doctors and scientists to discuss sports-related concussions. But the most powerful voice in the room was one that didn't exist back in Roosevelt's time: the National Football League.A judge recently approved a settlement to compensate retired NFL players suffering the effects of head injuries that is likely to cost the league several hundred million dollars. It also announced this year that it would donate $45 million to the youth organization it founded, USA Football, in part to expand safety training for coaches.As the richest sports enterprise in America, the NFL can absorb almost any legal hit that comes its way. But our high schools can't. And the league needs them to continue sponsoring football teams, which — alongside college squads — are the main training system for the pros.If he had a son, the president said last year, he'd "have to think long and hard" before letting him play football. But the rest of us need to think long and hard too about why we're putting so many kids at risk to subsidize a league that's already awash in money. And if we think we can wash away the risk, we're kidding ourselves.According to the passage, the chance of a kid suffering a concussion by the time they get to high school is:a)5%b)7%c)10%d)cannot be determined from the passageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of In 1893, Theodore Roosevelt published an article in defense of college football. As player injuries mounted, some critics had called for a ban on the game. Nonsense, the future president wrote. "It is mere unmanly folly to try to do away with the sport because the risk exists." Instead, he argued, reform football to "minimize" its dangers.Sound familiar? As millions of American boys and young men take to our football fields this fall, there's lots of talk about making the game safer. We've seen new rules on tackling, stronger penalties for infractions and time limits on practices. But it's unlikely that these changes will significantly reduce injuries. For the last century, schools and colleges have tried to modify the game so fewer people get hurt. And it hasn't worked.The first changes took place in the early 1900s. Before that time the game resembled rugby, with players piling on top of one another to control the ball. They could pass it sideways or backward but not forward.The results were predictable: smashed noses, dislocated shoulders, broken necks and fractured skulls. Dozens of young men died, mostly from cerebral hemorrhage. "The sight of a confused mass of educated young men making batter-rams of their bodies, plunging their heads into each other's stomachs, piling upon each other or maiming each other for life — sometimes indeed … killing each other … is to me a brutal monstrosity," declared Cornell President Andrew D. White in 1891.Fourteen years later, having ascended to the White House, Roosevelt convened a meeting of coaches from Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Amid newspaper reports of 18 football deaths that fall, the 1905 meeting set in motion a series of reforms to protect players from injury — and to guard the sport from critics who wanted to end it altogether.The most controversial innovation was the forward pass, which would spread players more widely and decrease the amount of contact between them. But the leading opponent of the reform, Yale coach Walter Camp, warned that players streaking downfield would face even greater danger than the ones clumped together near the line of scrimmage. Camp turned out to be correct.The recent increase of concussions — at every level of the sport — is partly due to "pass-first" offenses, which have led to more high-speed collisions. By stopping the game clock for incompletions, passing has also increased the total number of plays and, with it, the opportunities for injury.Ditto for helmets, another reform designed to reduce harm on the field. In the early years of the game, some players grew their hair long to provide a modicum of head protection. Others began to wear leather helmets, which were developed by an Annapolis shoemaker to protect a Navy midshipman after the player's doctor told him that he might die from another hit to his head.Enter the plastic helmet, which provided more cushioning. But it also became a weapon in its own right, allowing players to "lead with their heads" as they tackled. Despite new restrictions on that practice, helmet-to-helmet hits remain one of the key causes of concussions and other injuries.And the most common victims are kids, who are starting football at ever-younger ages. Their necks aren't fully developed, so they can't brace for a hit the way adults can. And their braincases haven't finished hardening, which makes their skulls more vulnerable to impact.By the time they get to high school, kids have a 5% chance of sustaining a concussion for each season they play. And as a 2011 study showed, former football players who sustained two or more concussions in their youth have a significantly higher rate of cognitive impairment as adults.The issue made its way back to the White House in May, when President Obama convened a meeting of coaches, doctors and scientists to discuss sports-related concussions. But the most powerful voice in the room was one that didn't exist back in Roosevelt's time: the National Football League.A judge recently approved a settlement to compensate retired NFL players suffering the effects of head injuries that is likely to cost the league several hundred million dollars. It also announced this year that it would donate $45 million to the youth organization it founded, USA Football, in part to expand safety training for coaches.As the richest sports enterprise in America, the NFL can absorb almost any legal hit that comes its way. But our high schools can't. And the league needs them to continue sponsoring football teams, which — alongside college squads — are the main training system for the pros.If he had a son, the president said last year, he'd "have to think long and hard" before letting him play football. But the rest of us need to think long and hard too about why we're putting so many kids at risk to subsidize a league that's already awash in money. And if we think we can wash away the risk, we're kidding ourselves.According to the passage, the chance of a kid suffering a concussion by the time they get to high school is:a)5%b)7%c)10%d)cannot be determined from the passageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice In 1893, Theodore Roosevelt published an article in defense of college football. As player injuries mounted, some critics had called for a ban on the game. Nonsense, the future president wrote. "It is mere unmanly folly to try to do away with the sport because the risk exists." Instead, he argued, reform football to "minimize" its dangers.Sound familiar? As millions of American boys and young men take to our football fields this fall, there's lots of talk about making the game safer. We've seen new rules on tackling, stronger penalties for infractions and time limits on practices. But it's unlikely that these changes will significantly reduce injuries. For the last century, schools and colleges have tried to modify the game so fewer people get hurt. And it hasn't worked.The first changes took place in the early 1900s. Before that time the game resembled rugby, with players piling on top of one another to control the ball. They could pass it sideways or backward but not forward.The results were predictable: smashed noses, dislocated shoulders, broken necks and fractured skulls. Dozens of young men died, mostly from cerebral hemorrhage. "The sight of a confused mass of educated young men making batter-rams of their bodies, plunging their heads into each other's stomachs, piling upon each other or maiming each other for life — sometimes indeed … killing each other … is to me a brutal monstrosity," declared Cornell President Andrew D. White in 1891.Fourteen years later, having ascended to the White House, Roosevelt convened a meeting of coaches from Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Amid newspaper reports of 18 football deaths that fall, the 1905 meeting set in motion a series of reforms to protect players from injury — and to guard the sport from critics who wanted to end it altogether.The most controversial innovation was the forward pass, which would spread players more widely and decrease the amount of contact between them. But the leading opponent of the reform, Yale coach Walter Camp, warned that players streaking downfield would face even greater danger than the ones clumped together near the line of scrimmage. Camp turned out to be correct.The recent increase of concussions — at every level of the sport — is partly due to "pass-first" offenses, which have led to more high-speed collisions. By stopping the game clock for incompletions, passing has also increased the total number of plays and, with it, the opportunities for injury.Ditto for helmets, another reform designed to reduce harm on the field. In the early years of the game, some players grew their hair long to provide a modicum of head protection. Others began to wear leather helmets, which were developed by an Annapolis shoemaker to protect a Navy midshipman after the player's doctor told him that he might die from another hit to his head.Enter the plastic helmet, which provided more cushioning. But it also became a weapon in its own right, allowing players to "lead with their heads" as they tackled. Despite new restrictions on that practice, helmet-to-helmet hits remain one of the key causes of concussions and other injuries.And the most common victims are kids, who are starting football at ever-younger ages. Their necks aren't fully developed, so they can't brace for a hit the way adults can. And their braincases haven't finished hardening, which makes their skulls more vulnerable to impact.By the time they get to high school, kids have a 5% chance of sustaining a concussion for each season they play. And as a 2011 study showed, former football players who sustained two or more concussions in their youth have a significantly higher rate of cognitive impairment as adults.The issue made its way back to the White House in May, when President Obama convened a meeting of coaches, doctors and scientists to discuss sports-related concussions. But the most powerful voice in the room was one that didn't exist back in Roosevelt's time: the National Football League.A judge recently approved a settlement to compensate retired NFL players suffering the effects of head injuries that is likely to cost the league several hundred million dollars. It also announced this year that it would donate $45 million to the youth organization it founded, USA Football, in part to expand safety training for coaches.As the richest sports enterprise in America, the NFL can absorb almost any legal hit that comes its way. But our high schools can't. And the league needs them to continue sponsoring football teams, which — alongside college squads — are the main training system for the pros.If he had a son, the president said last year, he'd "have to think long and hard" before letting him play football. But the rest of us need to think long and hard too about why we're putting so many kids at risk to subsidize a league that's already awash in money. And if we think we can wash away the risk, we're kidding ourselves.According to the passage, the chance of a kid suffering a concussion by the time they get to high school is:a)5%b)7%c)10%d)cannot be determined from the passageCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev