Question Description
Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:Attempts at gun control, the argument goes, contravene the oldest truth of politics in organized society- a myopic minority is more powerful than a distracted majority. Most Americans may well be, as the polls show, in favor of some kind of gun reform. But they have many other issues and desires on their minds, too. For those who are committed to guns, though, no other issue takes equal prominence, or directs their electoral intentions so narrowly. The three-quarters of the people who have, over the years, been for gun regulation... are helpless in the face of the minority who believe that their right to own guns is essential to their personal freedom.Yglesias makes an analogy between the regulation of guns and the regulation of alcohol. After a rather vivid era devoted to prohibiting alcohol—driven largely by women activists...the country recognized the practical impossibility of a ban, and has accepted limited, state-level alcohol restrictions ever since. As with the demon rum, so with the demon gun: we have to learn to live with some things if we’re to go on living with our fellow-citizens. Such thinking is, in its way, both a counsel of pragmatism and a policy of despair—accepting regular gun massacres as a feature of American life. Americans, in the end, like most people, seem to be better at acceptance than at resistance.Yet this counsel need not be the last word. Positive things can still get done. An instructive, if counterintuitive, example, perhaps, is the fight for the right to life, as it is called, which, has, through small-bore actions, effectively curtailed abortion rights throughout the South, particularly for low-income women and women of color. This is a repellent parallel for progressives, but it makes the point: big change happens through incremental measures. It is often said that the states alone can’t counter the gun lobby, given that guns pass so easily from state to state, but states with strong gun laws already have significantly fewer gun deaths.That pattern is reflected, to a lesser degree, in state liquor laws, but the analogy of guns to alcohol does not map exactly; alcohol is not the instrument of action in the same way that guns are. A better analogy is to cars, which are dangerous and often deadly, particularly with a drunk driver behind the wheel; nearly thirty people are killed every day in D.U.I. incidents. In fact, there are nearly as many motor-vehicle deaths each year in this country as there are firearm deaths, but far more people have access to cars on a daily basis than to guns. So, what do we do about cars? We regulate them. We have mandatory insurance in nearly all states, we have compulsory lessons, we have universal licensing. We create, at the state and local levels, ever more ingenious ways of preventing people from driving while impaired. According to the Violence Policy Center, auto-related deaths have declined over the past two decades, while gun deaths have risen.The truth of reform is that it can begin anywhere, on any scale, and, once begun, it tends to be self-renewing. And, as reformers well know, it does not always matter where the reform starts—if it starts at all, it magnetizes other reforms toward it.Q.Why does the author refer to the fight for right to life example as a counterintuitive example?a)Because trivial developments led to a major social change, whereas gun control requires large-scale interventions.b)Because the outcome is regressive in nature, whereas the pursuit of gun control is a progressive objective.c)Because the outcome benefitted only select communities, whereas gun control is a universal good.d)Because the outcome was largely driven by individual actions, whereas gun control requires collective intervention.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 carefully and answer the following questions:Attempts at gun control, the argument goes, contravene the oldest truth of politics in organized society- a myopic minority is more powerful than a distracted majority. Most Americans may well be, as the polls show, in favor of some kind of gun reform. But they have many other issues and desires on their minds, too. For those who are committed to guns, though, no other issue takes equal prominence, or directs their electoral intentions so narrowly. The three-quarters of the people who have, over the years, been for gun regulation... are helpless in the face of the minority who believe that their right to own guns is essential to their personal freedom.Yglesias makes an analogy between the regulation of guns and the regulation of alcohol. After a rather vivid era devoted to prohibiting alcohol—driven largely by women activists...the country recognized the practical impossibility of a ban, and has accepted limited, state-level alcohol restrictions ever since. As with the demon rum, so with the demon gun: we have to learn to live with some things if we’re to go on living with our fellow-citizens. Such thinking is, in its way, both a counsel of pragmatism and a policy of despair—accepting regular gun massacres as a feature of American life. Americans, in the end, like most people, seem to be better at acceptance than at resistance.Yet this counsel need not be the last word. Positive things can still get done. An instructive, if counterintuitive, example, perhaps, is the fight for the right to life, as it is called, which, has, through small-bore actions, effectively curtailed abortion rights throughout the South, particularly for low-income women and women of color. This is a repellent parallel for progressives, but it makes the point: big change happens through incremental measures. It is often said that the states alone can’t counter the gun lobby, given that guns pass so easily from state to state, but states with strong gun laws already have significantly fewer gun deaths.That pattern is reflected, to a lesser degree, in state liquor laws, but the analogy of guns to alcohol does not map exactly; alcohol is not the instrument of action in the same way that guns are. A better analogy is to cars, which are dangerous and often deadly, particularly with a drunk driver behind the wheel; nearly thirty people are killed every day in D.U.I. incidents. In fact, there are nearly as many motor-vehicle deaths each year in this country as there are firearm deaths, but far more people have access to cars on a daily basis than to guns. So, what do we do about cars? We regulate them. We have mandatory insurance in nearly all states, we have compulsory lessons, we have universal licensing. We create, at the state and local levels, ever more ingenious ways of preventing people from driving while impaired. According to the Violence Policy Center, auto-related deaths have declined over the past two decades, while gun deaths have risen.The truth of reform is that it can begin anywhere, on any scale, and, once begun, it tends to be self-renewing. And, as reformers well know, it does not always matter where the reform starts—if it starts at all, it magnetizes other reforms toward it.Q.Why does the author refer to the fight for right to life example as a counterintuitive example?a)Because trivial developments led to a major social change, whereas gun control requires large-scale interventions.b)Because the outcome is regressive in nature, whereas the pursuit of gun control is a progressive objective.c)Because the outcome benefitted only select communities, whereas gun control is a universal good.d)Because the outcome was largely driven by individual actions, whereas gun control requires collective intervention.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 carefully and answer the following questions:Attempts at gun control, the argument goes, contravene the oldest truth of politics in organized society- a myopic minority is more powerful than a distracted majority. Most Americans may well be, as the polls show, in favor of some kind of gun reform. But they have many other issues and desires on their minds, too. For those who are committed to guns, though, no other issue takes equal prominence, or directs their electoral intentions so narrowly. The three-quarters of the people who have, over the years, been for gun regulation... are helpless in the face of the minority who believe that their right to own guns is essential to their personal freedom.Yglesias makes an analogy between the regulation of guns and the regulation of alcohol. After a rather vivid era devoted to prohibiting alcohol—driven largely by women activists...the country recognized the practical impossibility of a ban, and has accepted limited, state-level alcohol restrictions ever since. As with the demon rum, so with the demon gun: we have to learn to live with some things if we’re to go on living with our fellow-citizens. Such thinking is, in its way, both a counsel of pragmatism and a policy of despair—accepting regular gun massacres as a feature of American life. Americans, in the end, like most people, seem to be better at acceptance than at resistance.Yet this counsel need not be the last word. Positive things can still get done. An instructive, if counterintuitive, example, perhaps, is the fight for the right to life, as it is called, which, has, through small-bore actions, effectively curtailed abortion rights throughout the South, particularly for low-income women and women of color. This is a repellent parallel for progressives, but it makes the point: big change happens through incremental measures. It is often said that the states alone can’t counter the gun lobby, given that guns pass so easily from state to state, but states with strong gun laws already have significantly fewer gun deaths.That pattern is reflected, to a lesser degree, in state liquor laws, but the analogy of guns to alcohol does not map exactly; alcohol is not the instrument of action in the same way that guns are. A better analogy is to cars, which are dangerous and often deadly, particularly with a drunk driver behind the wheel; nearly thirty people are killed every day in D.U.I. incidents. In fact, there are nearly as many motor-vehicle deaths each year in this country as there are firearm deaths, but far more people have access to cars on a daily basis than to guns. So, what do we do about cars? We regulate them. We have mandatory insurance in nearly all states, we have compulsory lessons, we have universal licensing. We create, at the state and local levels, ever more ingenious ways of preventing people from driving while impaired. According to the Violence Policy Center, auto-related deaths have declined over the past two decades, while gun deaths have risen.The truth of reform is that it can begin anywhere, on any scale, and, once begun, it tends to be self-renewing. And, as reformers well know, it does not always matter where the reform starts—if it starts at all, it magnetizes other reforms toward it.Q.Why does the author refer to the fight for right to life example as a counterintuitive example?a)Because trivial developments led to a major social change, whereas gun control requires large-scale interventions.b)Because the outcome is regressive in nature, whereas the pursuit of gun control is a progressive objective.c)Because the outcome benefitted only select communities, whereas gun control is a universal good.d)Because the outcome was largely driven by individual actions, whereas gun control requires collective intervention.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:Attempts at gun control, the argument goes, contravene the oldest truth of politics in organized society- a myopic minority is more powerful than a distracted majority. Most Americans may well be, as the polls show, in favor of some kind of gun reform. But they have many other issues and desires on their minds, too. For those who are committed to guns, though, no other issue takes equal prominence, or directs their electoral intentions so narrowly. The three-quarters of the people who have, over the years, been for gun regulation... are helpless in the face of the minority who believe that their right to own guns is essential to their personal freedom.Yglesias makes an analogy between the regulation of guns and the regulation of alcohol. After a rather vivid era devoted to prohibiting alcohol—driven largely by women activists...the country recognized the practical impossibility of a ban, and has accepted limited, state-level alcohol restrictions ever since. As with the demon rum, so with the demon gun: we have to learn to live with some things if we’re to go on living with our fellow-citizens. Such thinking is, in its way, both a counsel of pragmatism and a policy of despair—accepting regular gun massacres as a feature of American life. Americans, in the end, like most people, seem to be better at acceptance than at resistance.Yet this counsel need not be the last word. Positive things can still get done. An instructive, if counterintuitive, example, perhaps, is the fight for the right to life, as it is called, which, has, through small-bore actions, effectively curtailed abortion rights throughout the South, particularly for low-income women and women of color. This is a repellent parallel for progressives, but it makes the point: big change happens through incremental measures. It is often said that the states alone can’t counter the gun lobby, given that guns pass so easily from state to state, but states with strong gun laws already have significantly fewer gun deaths.That pattern is reflected, to a lesser degree, in state liquor laws, but the analogy of guns to alcohol does not map exactly; alcohol is not the instrument of action in the same way that guns are. A better analogy is to cars, which are dangerous and often deadly, particularly with a drunk driver behind the wheel; nearly thirty people are killed every day in D.U.I. incidents. In fact, there are nearly as many motor-vehicle deaths each year in this country as there are firearm deaths, but far more people have access to cars on a daily basis than to guns. So, what do we do about cars? We regulate them. We have mandatory insurance in nearly all states, we have compulsory lessons, we have universal licensing. We create, at the state and local levels, ever more ingenious ways of preventing people from driving while impaired. According to the Violence Policy Center, auto-related deaths have declined over the past two decades, while gun deaths have risen.The truth of reform is that it can begin anywhere, on any scale, and, once begun, it tends to be self-renewing. And, as reformers well know, it does not always matter where the reform starts—if it starts at all, it magnetizes other reforms toward it.Q.Why does the author refer to the fight for right to life example as a counterintuitive example?a)Because trivial developments led to a major social change, whereas gun control requires large-scale interventions.b)Because the outcome is regressive in nature, whereas the pursuit of gun control is a progressive objective.c)Because the outcome benefitted only select communities, whereas gun control is a universal good.d)Because the outcome was largely driven by individual actions, whereas gun control requires collective intervention.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 carefully and answer the following questions:Attempts at gun control, the argument goes, contravene the oldest truth of politics in organized society- a myopic minority is more powerful than a distracted majority. Most Americans may well be, as the polls show, in favor of some kind of gun reform. But they have many other issues and desires on their minds, too. For those who are committed to guns, though, no other issue takes equal prominence, or directs their electoral intentions so narrowly. The three-quarters of the people who have, over the years, been for gun regulation... are helpless in the face of the minority who believe that their right to own guns is essential to their personal freedom.Yglesias makes an analogy between the regulation of guns and the regulation of alcohol. After a rather vivid era devoted to prohibiting alcohol—driven largely by women activists...the country recognized the practical impossibility of a ban, and has accepted limited, state-level alcohol restrictions ever since. As with the demon rum, so with the demon gun: we have to learn to live with some things if we’re to go on living with our fellow-citizens. Such thinking is, in its way, both a counsel of pragmatism and a policy of despair—accepting regular gun massacres as a feature of American life. Americans, in the end, like most people, seem to be better at acceptance than at resistance.Yet this counsel need not be the last word. Positive things can still get done. An instructive, if counterintuitive, example, perhaps, is the fight for the right to life, as it is called, which, has, through small-bore actions, effectively curtailed abortion rights throughout the South, particularly for low-income women and women of color. This is a repellent parallel for progressives, but it makes the point: big change happens through incremental measures. It is often said that the states alone can’t counter the gun lobby, given that guns pass so easily from state to state, but states with strong gun laws already have significantly fewer gun deaths.That pattern is reflected, to a lesser degree, in state liquor laws, but the analogy of guns to alcohol does not map exactly; alcohol is not the instrument of action in the same way that guns are. A better analogy is to cars, which are dangerous and often deadly, particularly with a drunk driver behind the wheel; nearly thirty people are killed every day in D.U.I. incidents. In fact, there are nearly as many motor-vehicle deaths each year in this country as there are firearm deaths, but far more people have access to cars on a daily basis than to guns. So, what do we do about cars? We regulate them. We have mandatory insurance in nearly all states, we have compulsory lessons, we have universal licensing. We create, at the state and local levels, ever more ingenious ways of preventing people from driving while impaired. According to the Violence Policy Center, auto-related deaths have declined over the past two decades, while gun deaths have risen.The truth of reform is that it can begin anywhere, on any scale, and, once begun, it tends to be self-renewing. And, as reformers well know, it does not always matter where the reform starts—if it starts at all, it magnetizes other reforms toward it.Q.Why does the author refer to the fight for right to life example as a counterintuitive example?a)Because trivial developments led to a major social change, whereas gun control requires large-scale interventions.b)Because the outcome is regressive in nature, whereas the pursuit of gun control is a progressive objective.c)Because the outcome benefitted only select communities, whereas gun control is a universal good.d)Because the outcome was largely driven by individual actions, whereas gun control requires collective intervention.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:Attempts at gun control, the argument goes, contravene the oldest truth of politics in organized society- a myopic minority is more powerful than a distracted majority. Most Americans may well be, as the polls show, in favor of some kind of gun reform. But they have many other issues and desires on their minds, too. For those who are committed to guns, though, no other issue takes equal prominence, or directs their electoral intentions so narrowly. The three-quarters of the people who have, over the years, been for gun regulation... are helpless in the face of the minority who believe that their right to own guns is essential to their personal freedom.Yglesias makes an analogy between the regulation of guns and the regulation of alcohol. After a rather vivid era devoted to prohibiting alcohol—driven largely by women activists...the country recognized the practical impossibility of a ban, and has accepted limited, state-level alcohol restrictions ever since. As with the demon rum, so with the demon gun: we have to learn to live with some things if we’re to go on living with our fellow-citizens. Such thinking is, in its way, both a counsel of pragmatism and a policy of despair—accepting regular gun massacres as a feature of American life. Americans, in the end, like most people, seem to be better at acceptance than at resistance.Yet this counsel need not be the last word. Positive things can still get done. An instructive, if counterintuitive, example, perhaps, is the fight for the right to life, as it is called, which, has, through small-bore actions, effectively curtailed abortion rights throughout the South, particularly for low-income women and women of color. This is a repellent parallel for progressives, but it makes the point: big change happens through incremental measures. It is often said that the states alone can’t counter the gun lobby, given that guns pass so easily from state to state, but states with strong gun laws already have significantly fewer gun deaths.That pattern is reflected, to a lesser degree, in state liquor laws, but the analogy of guns to alcohol does not map exactly; alcohol is not the instrument of action in the same way that guns are. A better analogy is to cars, which are dangerous and often deadly, particularly with a drunk driver behind the wheel; nearly thirty people are killed every day in D.U.I. incidents. In fact, there are nearly as many motor-vehicle deaths each year in this country as there are firearm deaths, but far more people have access to cars on a daily basis than to guns. So, what do we do about cars? We regulate them. We have mandatory insurance in nearly all states, we have compulsory lessons, we have universal licensing. We create, at the state and local levels, ever more ingenious ways of preventing people from driving while impaired. According to the Violence Policy Center, auto-related deaths have declined over the past two decades, while gun deaths have risen.The truth of reform is that it can begin anywhere, on any scale, and, once begun, it tends to be self-renewing. And, as reformers well know, it does not always matter where the reform starts—if it starts at all, it magnetizes other reforms toward it.Q.Why does the author refer to the fight for right to life example as a counterintuitive example?a)Because trivial developments led to a major social change, whereas gun control requires large-scale interventions.b)Because the outcome is regressive in nature, whereas the pursuit of gun control is a progressive objective.c)Because the outcome benefitted only select communities, whereas gun control is a universal good.d)Because the outcome was largely driven by individual actions, whereas gun control requires collective intervention.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:Attempts at gun control, the argument goes, contravene the oldest truth of politics in organized society- a myopic minority is more powerful than a distracted majority. Most Americans may well be, as the polls show, in favor of some kind of gun reform. But they have many other issues and desires on their minds, too. For those who are committed to guns, though, no other issue takes equal prominence, or directs their electoral intentions so narrowly. The three-quarters of the people who have, over the years, been for gun regulation... are helpless in the face of the minority who believe that their right to own guns is essential to their personal freedom.Yglesias makes an analogy between the regulation of guns and the regulation of alcohol. After a rather vivid era devoted to prohibiting alcohol—driven largely by women activists...the country recognized the practical impossibility of a ban, and has accepted limited, state-level alcohol restrictions ever since. As with the demon rum, so with the demon gun: we have to learn to live with some things if we’re to go on living with our fellow-citizens. Such thinking is, in its way, both a counsel of pragmatism and a policy of despair—accepting regular gun massacres as a feature of American life. Americans, in the end, like most people, seem to be better at acceptance than at resistance.Yet this counsel need not be the last word. Positive things can still get done. An instructive, if counterintuitive, example, perhaps, is the fight for the right to life, as it is called, which, has, through small-bore actions, effectively curtailed abortion rights throughout the South, particularly for low-income women and women of color. This is a repellent parallel for progressives, but it makes the point: big change happens through incremental measures. It is often said that the states alone can’t counter the gun lobby, given that guns pass so easily from state to state, but states with strong gun laws already have significantly fewer gun deaths.That pattern is reflected, to a lesser degree, in state liquor laws, but the analogy of guns to alcohol does not map exactly; alcohol is not the instrument of action in the same way that guns are. A better analogy is to cars, which are dangerous and often deadly, particularly with a drunk driver behind the wheel; nearly thirty people are killed every day in D.U.I. incidents. In fact, there are nearly as many motor-vehicle deaths each year in this country as there are firearm deaths, but far more people have access to cars on a daily basis than to guns. So, what do we do about cars? We regulate them. We have mandatory insurance in nearly all states, we have compulsory lessons, we have universal licensing. We create, at the state and local levels, ever more ingenious ways of preventing people from driving while impaired. According to the Violence Policy Center, auto-related deaths have declined over the past two decades, while gun deaths have risen.The truth of reform is that it can begin anywhere, on any scale, and, once begun, it tends to be self-renewing. And, as reformers well know, it does not always matter where the reform starts—if it starts at all, it magnetizes other reforms toward it.Q.Why does the author refer to the fight for right to life example as a counterintuitive example?a)Because trivial developments led to a major social change, whereas gun control requires large-scale interventions.b)Because the outcome is regressive in nature, whereas the pursuit of gun control is a progressive objective.c)Because the outcome benefitted only select communities, whereas gun control is a universal good.d)Because the outcome was largely driven by individual actions, whereas gun control requires collective intervention.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:Attempts at gun control, the argument goes, contravene the oldest truth of politics in organized society- a myopic minority is more powerful than a distracted majority. Most Americans may well be, as the polls show, in favor of some kind of gun reform. But they have many other issues and desires on their minds, too. For those who are committed to guns, though, no other issue takes equal prominence, or directs their electoral intentions so narrowly. The three-quarters of the people who have, over the years, been for gun regulation... are helpless in the face of the minority who believe that their right to own guns is essential to their personal freedom.Yglesias makes an analogy between the regulation of guns and the regulation of alcohol. After a rather vivid era devoted to prohibiting alcohol—driven largely by women activists...the country recognized the practical impossibility of a ban, and has accepted limited, state-level alcohol restrictions ever since. As with the demon rum, so with the demon gun: we have to learn to live with some things if we’re to go on living with our fellow-citizens. Such thinking is, in its way, both a counsel of pragmatism and a policy of despair—accepting regular gun massacres as a feature of American life. Americans, in the end, like most people, seem to be better at acceptance than at resistance.Yet this counsel need not be the last word. Positive things can still get done. An instructive, if counterintuitive, example, perhaps, is the fight for the right to life, as it is called, which, has, through small-bore actions, effectively curtailed abortion rights throughout the South, particularly for low-income women and women of color. This is a repellent parallel for progressives, but it makes the point: big change happens through incremental measures. It is often said that the states alone can’t counter the gun lobby, given that guns pass so easily from state to state, but states with strong gun laws already have significantly fewer gun deaths.That pattern is reflected, to a lesser degree, in state liquor laws, but the analogy of guns to alcohol does not map exactly; alcohol is not the instrument of action in the same way that guns are. A better analogy is to cars, which are dangerous and often deadly, particularly with a drunk driver behind the wheel; nearly thirty people are killed every day in D.U.I. incidents. In fact, there are nearly as many motor-vehicle deaths each year in this country as there are firearm deaths, but far more people have access to cars on a daily basis than to guns. So, what do we do about cars? We regulate them. We have mandatory insurance in nearly all states, we have compulsory lessons, we have universal licensing. We create, at the state and local levels, ever more ingenious ways of preventing people from driving while impaired. According to the Violence Policy Center, auto-related deaths have declined over the past two decades, while gun deaths have risen.The truth of reform is that it can begin anywhere, on any scale, and, once begun, it tends to be self-renewing. And, as reformers well know, it does not always matter where the reform starts—if it starts at all, it magnetizes other reforms toward it.Q.Why does the author refer to the fight for right to life example as a counterintuitive example?a)Because trivial developments led to a major social change, whereas gun control requires large-scale interventions.b)Because the outcome is regressive in nature, whereas the pursuit of gun control is a progressive objective.c)Because the outcome benefitted only select communities, whereas gun control is a universal good.d)Because the outcome was largely driven by individual actions, whereas gun control requires collective intervention.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:Attempts at gun control, the argument goes, contravene the oldest truth of politics in organized society- a myopic minority is more powerful than a distracted majority. Most Americans may well be, as the polls show, in favor of some kind of gun reform. But they have many other issues and desires on their minds, too. For those who are committed to guns, though, no other issue takes equal prominence, or directs their electoral intentions so narrowly. The three-quarters of the people who have, over the years, been for gun regulation... are helpless in the face of the minority who believe that their right to own guns is essential to their personal freedom.Yglesias makes an analogy between the regulation of guns and the regulation of alcohol. After a rather vivid era devoted to prohibiting alcohol—driven largely by women activists...the country recognized the practical impossibility of a ban, and has accepted limited, state-level alcohol restrictions ever since. As with the demon rum, so with the demon gun: we have to learn to live with some things if we’re to go on living with our fellow-citizens. Such thinking is, in its way, both a counsel of pragmatism and a policy of despair—accepting regular gun massacres as a feature of American life. Americans, in the end, like most people, seem to be better at acceptance than at resistance.Yet this counsel need not be the last word. Positive things can still get done. An instructive, if counterintuitive, example, perhaps, is the fight for the right to life, as it is called, which, has, through small-bore actions, effectively curtailed abortion rights throughout the South, particularly for low-income women and women of color. This is a repellent parallel for progressives, but it makes the point: big change happens through incremental measures. It is often said that the states alone can’t counter the gun lobby, given that guns pass so easily from state to state, but states with strong gun laws already have significantly fewer gun deaths.That pattern is reflected, to a lesser degree, in state liquor laws, but the analogy of guns to alcohol does not map exactly; alcohol is not the instrument of action in the same way that guns are. A better analogy is to cars, which are dangerous and often deadly, particularly with a drunk driver behind the wheel; nearly thirty people are killed every day in D.U.I. incidents. In fact, there are nearly as many motor-vehicle deaths each year in this country as there are firearm deaths, but far more people have access to cars on a daily basis than to guns. So, what do we do about cars? We regulate them. We have mandatory insurance in nearly all states, we have compulsory lessons, we have universal licensing. We create, at the state and local levels, ever more ingenious ways of preventing people from driving while impaired. According to the Violence Policy Center, auto-related deaths have declined over the past two decades, while gun deaths have risen.The truth of reform is that it can begin anywhere, on any scale, and, once begun, it tends to be self-renewing. And, as reformers well know, it does not always matter where the reform starts—if it starts at all, it magnetizes other reforms toward it.Q.Why does the author refer to the fight for right to life example as a counterintuitive example?a)Because trivial developments led to a major social change, whereas gun control requires large-scale interventions.b)Because the outcome is regressive in nature, whereas the pursuit of gun control is a progressive objective.c)Because the outcome benefitted only select communities, whereas gun control is a universal good.d)Because the outcome was largely driven by individual actions, whereas gun control requires collective intervention.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.