Question Description
Read the passage given below and answer the following questions.Here is an undeniable but seldom-stated fact: The quickest way to destroy terrorism as a tool would be to institute a news media policy of information blackout regarding terrorist attacks. The terrorist act itself only creates a few corpses (9/11 notwithstanding). But it is actually the dissemination of information which creates the state of terror among the population.Of course, in the age of social media we could never implement such a policy. But it’s worth noting that our collective addiction to information—and the inability of for-profit media to pull itself away from ratings—that creates among the collective brain of our population, a deep susceptibility to be terrorized.There is actually one way in which we already, tacitly recognize the role of media in creating and aiding terror. In the wake of mass shootings, assassination attempts, and other kinds of “high profile” acts, the media itself is sensitive to the role it plays in potentially spurring on “copycat” attacks. I’ve seen this kind of thing discussed since Columbine, and perhaps even before. Yet I’ve never seen anyone pull on the thread and unravel it all the way down to its core, to ask: “What if our media itself is the medium which makes mass terrorism possible?”Media coverage is the oxygen that sustains this fire. Media does the terrorizing, more than any particular act. When Jihadi John slits a throat in a country on the other side of the world, how is his knife, and how is that throat, any different than the thousands of people around the world who are murdered by knives and bullets on a daily basis?Our modern information dissemination structures themselves amplify this act and weave it into the fabric of our national story. We have come to rely on this legacy mechanism of “journalism” and “news reporting” for sense-making about the world. We’ve tacitly ceded control of narrative creation about our tribe from the priests over to a for-profit complex of radio, print, TV, web, etc. And this entire edifice—of top-down, broadcast synchrony of a singular, dominant narrative—has a particular failure mode. Since it has no explicit control (it is an emergent hive of activity), and since it has no actual architecture that would prevent it from catastrophic, systemic failure, it can get hijacked. Very easily.That vulnerability, when exploited by jihadist groups, creates a standing wave pattern, namely, the fear of random acts of violence. But terrorism, by definition, is the creation of a state of fear or hysteria among a population. ISIL doesn’t operate any radio towers in the US, nor does it configure internet routers in our data centers. Jihadists kill people—that is true. But our media environment creates and sustains the sense of terror.Q.Which of the following would contradict the author’s main argument?a)The media self-censors itself to provide privacy to victims and their families.b)Media provides information during terrorist attacks that can prevent people from going to that area.c)The awareness that media creates against terrorism is instrumental in preventing youths from joining terrorist organisations.d)Countries that ban reporting of terrorist attacks face as many terror attacks as those that dont.Correct 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 Read the passage given below and answer the following questions.Here is an undeniable but seldom-stated fact: The quickest way to destroy terrorism as a tool would be to institute a news media policy of information blackout regarding terrorist attacks. The terrorist act itself only creates a few corpses (9/11 notwithstanding). But it is actually the dissemination of information which creates the state of terror among the population.Of course, in the age of social media we could never implement such a policy. But it’s worth noting that our collective addiction to information—and the inability of for-profit media to pull itself away from ratings—that creates among the collective brain of our population, a deep susceptibility to be terrorized.There is actually one way in which we already, tacitly recognize the role of media in creating and aiding terror. In the wake of mass shootings, assassination attempts, and other kinds of “high profile” acts, the media itself is sensitive to the role it plays in potentially spurring on “copycat” attacks. I’ve seen this kind of thing discussed since Columbine, and perhaps even before. Yet I’ve never seen anyone pull on the thread and unravel it all the way down to its core, to ask: “What if our media itself is the medium which makes mass terrorism possible?”Media coverage is the oxygen that sustains this fire. Media does the terrorizing, more than any particular act. When Jihadi John slits a throat in a country on the other side of the world, how is his knife, and how is that throat, any different than the thousands of people around the world who are murdered by knives and bullets on a daily basis?Our modern information dissemination structures themselves amplify this act and weave it into the fabric of our national story. We have come to rely on this legacy mechanism of “journalism” and “news reporting” for sense-making about the world. We’ve tacitly ceded control of narrative creation about our tribe from the priests over to a for-profit complex of radio, print, TV, web, etc. And this entire edifice—of top-down, broadcast synchrony of a singular, dominant narrative—has a particular failure mode. Since it has no explicit control (it is an emergent hive of activity), and since it has no actual architecture that would prevent it from catastrophic, systemic failure, it can get hijacked. Very easily.That vulnerability, when exploited by jihadist groups, creates a standing wave pattern, namely, the fear of random acts of violence. But terrorism, by definition, is the creation of a state of fear or hysteria among a population. ISIL doesn’t operate any radio towers in the US, nor does it configure internet routers in our data centers. Jihadists kill people—that is true. But our media environment creates and sustains the sense of terror.Q.Which of the following would contradict the author’s main argument?a)The media self-censors itself to provide privacy to victims and their families.b)Media provides information during terrorist attacks that can prevent people from going to that area.c)The awareness that media creates against terrorism is instrumental in preventing youths from joining terrorist organisations.d)Countries that ban reporting of terrorist attacks face as many terror attacks as those that dont.Correct 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 Read the passage given below and answer the following questions.Here is an undeniable but seldom-stated fact: The quickest way to destroy terrorism as a tool would be to institute a news media policy of information blackout regarding terrorist attacks. The terrorist act itself only creates a few corpses (9/11 notwithstanding). But it is actually the dissemination of information which creates the state of terror among the population.Of course, in the age of social media we could never implement such a policy. But it’s worth noting that our collective addiction to information—and the inability of for-profit media to pull itself away from ratings—that creates among the collective brain of our population, a deep susceptibility to be terrorized.There is actually one way in which we already, tacitly recognize the role of media in creating and aiding terror. In the wake of mass shootings, assassination attempts, and other kinds of “high profile” acts, the media itself is sensitive to the role it plays in potentially spurring on “copycat” attacks. I’ve seen this kind of thing discussed since Columbine, and perhaps even before. Yet I’ve never seen anyone pull on the thread and unravel it all the way down to its core, to ask: “What if our media itself is the medium which makes mass terrorism possible?”Media coverage is the oxygen that sustains this fire. Media does the terrorizing, more than any particular act. When Jihadi John slits a throat in a country on the other side of the world, how is his knife, and how is that throat, any different than the thousands of people around the world who are murdered by knives and bullets on a daily basis?Our modern information dissemination structures themselves amplify this act and weave it into the fabric of our national story. We have come to rely on this legacy mechanism of “journalism” and “news reporting” for sense-making about the world. We’ve tacitly ceded control of narrative creation about our tribe from the priests over to a for-profit complex of radio, print, TV, web, etc. And this entire edifice—of top-down, broadcast synchrony of a singular, dominant narrative—has a particular failure mode. Since it has no explicit control (it is an emergent hive of activity), and since it has no actual architecture that would prevent it from catastrophic, systemic failure, it can get hijacked. Very easily.That vulnerability, when exploited by jihadist groups, creates a standing wave pattern, namely, the fear of random acts of violence. But terrorism, by definition, is the creation of a state of fear or hysteria among a population. ISIL doesn’t operate any radio towers in the US, nor does it configure internet routers in our data centers. Jihadists kill people—that is true. But our media environment creates and sustains the sense of terror.Q.Which of the following would contradict the author’s main argument?a)The media self-censors itself to provide privacy to victims and their families.b)Media provides information during terrorist attacks that can prevent people from going to that area.c)The awareness that media creates against terrorism is instrumental in preventing youths from joining terrorist organisations.d)Countries that ban reporting of terrorist attacks face as many terror attacks as those that dont.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the passage given below and answer the following questions.Here is an undeniable but seldom-stated fact: The quickest way to destroy terrorism as a tool would be to institute a news media policy of information blackout regarding terrorist attacks. The terrorist act itself only creates a few corpses (9/11 notwithstanding). But it is actually the dissemination of information which creates the state of terror among the population.Of course, in the age of social media we could never implement such a policy. But it’s worth noting that our collective addiction to information—and the inability of for-profit media to pull itself away from ratings—that creates among the collective brain of our population, a deep susceptibility to be terrorized.There is actually one way in which we already, tacitly recognize the role of media in creating and aiding terror. In the wake of mass shootings, assassination attempts, and other kinds of “high profile” acts, the media itself is sensitive to the role it plays in potentially spurring on “copycat” attacks. I’ve seen this kind of thing discussed since Columbine, and perhaps even before. Yet I’ve never seen anyone pull on the thread and unravel it all the way down to its core, to ask: “What if our media itself is the medium which makes mass terrorism possible?”Media coverage is the oxygen that sustains this fire. Media does the terrorizing, more than any particular act. When Jihadi John slits a throat in a country on the other side of the world, how is his knife, and how is that throat, any different than the thousands of people around the world who are murdered by knives and bullets on a daily basis?Our modern information dissemination structures themselves amplify this act and weave it into the fabric of our national story. We have come to rely on this legacy mechanism of “journalism” and “news reporting” for sense-making about the world. We’ve tacitly ceded control of narrative creation about our tribe from the priests over to a for-profit complex of radio, print, TV, web, etc. And this entire edifice—of top-down, broadcast synchrony of a singular, dominant narrative—has a particular failure mode. Since it has no explicit control (it is an emergent hive of activity), and since it has no actual architecture that would prevent it from catastrophic, systemic failure, it can get hijacked. Very easily.That vulnerability, when exploited by jihadist groups, creates a standing wave pattern, namely, the fear of random acts of violence. But terrorism, by definition, is the creation of a state of fear or hysteria among a population. ISIL doesn’t operate any radio towers in the US, nor does it configure internet routers in our data centers. Jihadists kill people—that is true. But our media environment creates and sustains the sense of terror.Q.Which of the following would contradict the author’s main argument?a)The media self-censors itself to provide privacy to victims and their families.b)Media provides information during terrorist attacks that can prevent people from going to that area.c)The awareness that media creates against terrorism is instrumental in preventing youths from joining terrorist organisations.d)Countries that ban reporting of terrorist attacks face as many terror attacks as those that dont.Correct 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 Read the passage given below and answer the following questions.Here is an undeniable but seldom-stated fact: The quickest way to destroy terrorism as a tool would be to institute a news media policy of information blackout regarding terrorist attacks. The terrorist act itself only creates a few corpses (9/11 notwithstanding). But it is actually the dissemination of information which creates the state of terror among the population.Of course, in the age of social media we could never implement such a policy. But it’s worth noting that our collective addiction to information—and the inability of for-profit media to pull itself away from ratings—that creates among the collective brain of our population, a deep susceptibility to be terrorized.There is actually one way in which we already, tacitly recognize the role of media in creating and aiding terror. In the wake of mass shootings, assassination attempts, and other kinds of “high profile” acts, the media itself is sensitive to the role it plays in potentially spurring on “copycat” attacks. I’ve seen this kind of thing discussed since Columbine, and perhaps even before. Yet I’ve never seen anyone pull on the thread and unravel it all the way down to its core, to ask: “What if our media itself is the medium which makes mass terrorism possible?”Media coverage is the oxygen that sustains this fire. Media does the terrorizing, more than any particular act. When Jihadi John slits a throat in a country on the other side of the world, how is his knife, and how is that throat, any different than the thousands of people around the world who are murdered by knives and bullets on a daily basis?Our modern information dissemination structures themselves amplify this act and weave it into the fabric of our national story. We have come to rely on this legacy mechanism of “journalism” and “news reporting” for sense-making about the world. We’ve tacitly ceded control of narrative creation about our tribe from the priests over to a for-profit complex of radio, print, TV, web, etc. And this entire edifice—of top-down, broadcast synchrony of a singular, dominant narrative—has a particular failure mode. Since it has no explicit control (it is an emergent hive of activity), and since it has no actual architecture that would prevent it from catastrophic, systemic failure, it can get hijacked. Very easily.That vulnerability, when exploited by jihadist groups, creates a standing wave pattern, namely, the fear of random acts of violence. But terrorism, by definition, is the creation of a state of fear or hysteria among a population. ISIL doesn’t operate any radio towers in the US, nor does it configure internet routers in our data centers. Jihadists kill people—that is true. But our media environment creates and sustains the sense of terror.Q.Which of the following would contradict the author’s main argument?a)The media self-censors itself to provide privacy to victims and their families.b)Media provides information during terrorist attacks that can prevent people from going to that area.c)The awareness that media creates against terrorism is instrumental in preventing youths from joining terrorist organisations.d)Countries that ban reporting of terrorist attacks face as many terror attacks as those that dont.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the passage given below and answer the following questions.Here is an undeniable but seldom-stated fact: The quickest way to destroy terrorism as a tool would be to institute a news media policy of information blackout regarding terrorist attacks. The terrorist act itself only creates a few corpses (9/11 notwithstanding). But it is actually the dissemination of information which creates the state of terror among the population.Of course, in the age of social media we could never implement such a policy. But it’s worth noting that our collective addiction to information—and the inability of for-profit media to pull itself away from ratings—that creates among the collective brain of our population, a deep susceptibility to be terrorized.There is actually one way in which we already, tacitly recognize the role of media in creating and aiding terror. In the wake of mass shootings, assassination attempts, and other kinds of “high profile” acts, the media itself is sensitive to the role it plays in potentially spurring on “copycat” attacks. I’ve seen this kind of thing discussed since Columbine, and perhaps even before. Yet I’ve never seen anyone pull on the thread and unravel it all the way down to its core, to ask: “What if our media itself is the medium which makes mass terrorism possible?”Media coverage is the oxygen that sustains this fire. Media does the terrorizing, more than any particular act. When Jihadi John slits a throat in a country on the other side of the world, how is his knife, and how is that throat, any different than the thousands of people around the world who are murdered by knives and bullets on a daily basis?Our modern information dissemination structures themselves amplify this act and weave it into the fabric of our national story. We have come to rely on this legacy mechanism of “journalism” and “news reporting” for sense-making about the world. We’ve tacitly ceded control of narrative creation about our tribe from the priests over to a for-profit complex of radio, print, TV, web, etc. And this entire edifice—of top-down, broadcast synchrony of a singular, dominant narrative—has a particular failure mode. Since it has no explicit control (it is an emergent hive of activity), and since it has no actual architecture that would prevent it from catastrophic, systemic failure, it can get hijacked. Very easily.That vulnerability, when exploited by jihadist groups, creates a standing wave pattern, namely, the fear of random acts of violence. But terrorism, by definition, is the creation of a state of fear or hysteria among a population. ISIL doesn’t operate any radio towers in the US, nor does it configure internet routers in our data centers. Jihadists kill people—that is true. But our media environment creates and sustains the sense of terror.Q.Which of the following would contradict the author’s main argument?a)The media self-censors itself to provide privacy to victims and their families.b)Media provides information during terrorist attacks that can prevent people from going to that area.c)The awareness that media creates against terrorism is instrumental in preventing youths from joining terrorist organisations.d)Countries that ban reporting of terrorist attacks face as many terror attacks as those that dont.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the passage given below and answer the following questions.Here is an undeniable but seldom-stated fact: The quickest way to destroy terrorism as a tool would be to institute a news media policy of information blackout regarding terrorist attacks. The terrorist act itself only creates a few corpses (9/11 notwithstanding). But it is actually the dissemination of information which creates the state of terror among the population.Of course, in the age of social media we could never implement such a policy. But it’s worth noting that our collective addiction to information—and the inability of for-profit media to pull itself away from ratings—that creates among the collective brain of our population, a deep susceptibility to be terrorized.There is actually one way in which we already, tacitly recognize the role of media in creating and aiding terror. In the wake of mass shootings, assassination attempts, and other kinds of “high profile” acts, the media itself is sensitive to the role it plays in potentially spurring on “copycat” attacks. I’ve seen this kind of thing discussed since Columbine, and perhaps even before. Yet I’ve never seen anyone pull on the thread and unravel it all the way down to its core, to ask: “What if our media itself is the medium which makes mass terrorism possible?”Media coverage is the oxygen that sustains this fire. Media does the terrorizing, more than any particular act. When Jihadi John slits a throat in a country on the other side of the world, how is his knife, and how is that throat, any different than the thousands of people around the world who are murdered by knives and bullets on a daily basis?Our modern information dissemination structures themselves amplify this act and weave it into the fabric of our national story. We have come to rely on this legacy mechanism of “journalism” and “news reporting” for sense-making about the world. We’ve tacitly ceded control of narrative creation about our tribe from the priests over to a for-profit complex of radio, print, TV, web, etc. And this entire edifice—of top-down, broadcast synchrony of a singular, dominant narrative—has a particular failure mode. Since it has no explicit control (it is an emergent hive of activity), and since it has no actual architecture that would prevent it from catastrophic, systemic failure, it can get hijacked. Very easily.That vulnerability, when exploited by jihadist groups, creates a standing wave pattern, namely, the fear of random acts of violence. But terrorism, by definition, is the creation of a state of fear or hysteria among a population. ISIL doesn’t operate any radio towers in the US, nor does it configure internet routers in our data centers. Jihadists kill people—that is true. But our media environment creates and sustains the sense of terror.Q.Which of the following would contradict the author’s main argument?a)The media self-censors itself to provide privacy to victims and their families.b)Media provides information during terrorist attacks that can prevent people from going to that area.c)The awareness that media creates against terrorism is instrumental in preventing youths from joining terrorist organisations.d)Countries that ban reporting of terrorist attacks face as many terror attacks as those that dont.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the passage given below and answer the following questions.Here is an undeniable but seldom-stated fact: The quickest way to destroy terrorism as a tool would be to institute a news media policy of information blackout regarding terrorist attacks. The terrorist act itself only creates a few corpses (9/11 notwithstanding). But it is actually the dissemination of information which creates the state of terror among the population.Of course, in the age of social media we could never implement such a policy. But it’s worth noting that our collective addiction to information—and the inability of for-profit media to pull itself away from ratings—that creates among the collective brain of our population, a deep susceptibility to be terrorized.There is actually one way in which we already, tacitly recognize the role of media in creating and aiding terror. In the wake of mass shootings, assassination attempts, and other kinds of “high profile” acts, the media itself is sensitive to the role it plays in potentially spurring on “copycat” attacks. I’ve seen this kind of thing discussed since Columbine, and perhaps even before. Yet I’ve never seen anyone pull on the thread and unravel it all the way down to its core, to ask: “What if our media itself is the medium which makes mass terrorism possible?”Media coverage is the oxygen that sustains this fire. Media does the terrorizing, more than any particular act. When Jihadi John slits a throat in a country on the other side of the world, how is his knife, and how is that throat, any different than the thousands of people around the world who are murdered by knives and bullets on a daily basis?Our modern information dissemination structures themselves amplify this act and weave it into the fabric of our national story. We have come to rely on this legacy mechanism of “journalism” and “news reporting” for sense-making about the world. We’ve tacitly ceded control of narrative creation about our tribe from the priests over to a for-profit complex of radio, print, TV, web, etc. And this entire edifice—of top-down, broadcast synchrony of a singular, dominant narrative—has a particular failure mode. Since it has no explicit control (it is an emergent hive of activity), and since it has no actual architecture that would prevent it from catastrophic, systemic failure, it can get hijacked. Very easily.That vulnerability, when exploited by jihadist groups, creates a standing wave pattern, namely, the fear of random acts of violence. But terrorism, by definition, is the creation of a state of fear or hysteria among a population. ISIL doesn’t operate any radio towers in the US, nor does it configure internet routers in our data centers. Jihadists kill people—that is true. But our media environment creates and sustains the sense of terror.Q.Which of the following would contradict the author’s main argument?a)The media self-censors itself to provide privacy to victims and their families.b)Media provides information during terrorist attacks that can prevent people from going to that area.c)The awareness that media creates against terrorism is instrumental in preventing youths from joining terrorist organisations.d)Countries that ban reporting of terrorist attacks face as many terror attacks as those that dont.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the passage given below and answer the following questions.Here is an undeniable but seldom-stated fact: The quickest way to destroy terrorism as a tool would be to institute a news media policy of information blackout regarding terrorist attacks. The terrorist act itself only creates a few corpses (9/11 notwithstanding). But it is actually the dissemination of information which creates the state of terror among the population.Of course, in the age of social media we could never implement such a policy. But it’s worth noting that our collective addiction to information—and the inability of for-profit media to pull itself away from ratings—that creates among the collective brain of our population, a deep susceptibility to be terrorized.There is actually one way in which we already, tacitly recognize the role of media in creating and aiding terror. In the wake of mass shootings, assassination attempts, and other kinds of “high profile” acts, the media itself is sensitive to the role it plays in potentially spurring on “copycat” attacks. I’ve seen this kind of thing discussed since Columbine, and perhaps even before. Yet I’ve never seen anyone pull on the thread and unravel it all the way down to its core, to ask: “What if our media itself is the medium which makes mass terrorism possible?”Media coverage is the oxygen that sustains this fire. Media does the terrorizing, more than any particular act. When Jihadi John slits a throat in a country on the other side of the world, how is his knife, and how is that throat, any different than the thousands of people around the world who are murdered by knives and bullets on a daily basis?Our modern information dissemination structures themselves amplify this act and weave it into the fabric of our national story. We have come to rely on this legacy mechanism of “journalism” and “news reporting” for sense-making about the world. We’ve tacitly ceded control of narrative creation about our tribe from the priests over to a for-profit complex of radio, print, TV, web, etc. And this entire edifice—of top-down, broadcast synchrony of a singular, dominant narrative—has a particular failure mode. Since it has no explicit control (it is an emergent hive of activity), and since it has no actual architecture that would prevent it from catastrophic, systemic failure, it can get hijacked. Very easily.That vulnerability, when exploited by jihadist groups, creates a standing wave pattern, namely, the fear of random acts of violence. But terrorism, by definition, is the creation of a state of fear or hysteria among a population. ISIL doesn’t operate any radio towers in the US, nor does it configure internet routers in our data centers. Jihadists kill people—that is true. But our media environment creates and sustains the sense of terror.Q.Which of the following would contradict the author’s main argument?a)The media self-censors itself to provide privacy to victims and their families.b)Media provides information during terrorist attacks that can prevent people from going to that area.c)The awareness that media creates against terrorism is instrumental in preventing youths from joining terrorist organisations.d)Countries that ban reporting of terrorist attacks face as many terror attacks as those that dont.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.