CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >   Directions: Read the following passage caref... Start Learning for Free
Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.
Let's be honest: The change has been coming for a while. Reality television has inserted itself into the field of psychology as countless shows over the years have begun to use psychotherapists as a part of their cast. Therapy has long been a subject of at least mild intrigue because what is said to the therapist behind closed doors - well, one never really knows unless you're either the client or the therapist. For the most part, the psychotherapy room has historically acted as a sacred chamber, the rare place where the client feels safe and listened to, and the therapist acts as the supportive mirror, guide, and confidant.
The first reality show I ever saw which a therapist, Breaking Bonaduce (2005), had focused on the life of former TV star Danny Bonaduce. I remember thinking at the time how unusual it was that a therapist was actually having a session with clients - drumroll...and cameras! - in the same room. Back then, I didn't think too much of it, probably dismissing psychotherapy on TV as a passing fad. (It is worth mentioning, however, that the therapy I saw conducted on the show was actually pretty good.) Over the years, we have seen more therapists in reality television and audiences have sat through excerpts of more therapy sessions than I can - or want to - count. As the medium of TV therapy has become more common - heck, even expected on your average reality show - it's caused me to reflect on 1) what possesses the clients to be interested in venting their problems in such a public way, and 2) what possesses the therapists to want to show the therapy with their clients on TV. When it comes to the clients' motivations, I have heard many people say, "Oh, they just want attention." First, I'm not sure it's that simple.
I give psychotherapy clients an awful lot of credit for having the strength and courage to work on their issues, and I see it as my job as a therapist to protect them and their (often potentially) vulnerable feelings. Even if a client of mine said he wanted to appear on television in a therapy session, I'd have to really think about whether it would be good for him or her. Perhaps for some it would be okay, while it would be problematic for others? My sense, although no one can say for sure, is that it is probably ideal for a client to discuss their issues with the world later, once they're out of the woods and can look back on a hard time with the solace of knowing they're stronger now. Nevertheless, I've worked with clients on talk shows (e.g., The Doctors) where cameras documented their issues (e.g., problems with road rage) as well as my interventions to help them. In some ways, that's not so different from reality TV therapy, right?
Which brings us to L.A. Shrinks, the new show on BRAVO. The show, instead of focusing exclusively on the lives of the clients, also focuses on three therapists and - wait for it - their private lives! The show gives the audience a backstage pass into the personal lives of the therapists, and includes footage of emotional and dramatic moments for each of the therapists. Quite honestly, this show takes psychotherapists on television to another level. Incidentally, casting people for the show contacted me a while ago and asked me if I would be interested in trying out for the show. I said "no" because the idea of the show confused me: Would it bring the usual magic of reality TV, replete with crafted editing that makes the therapists look nuts? Would my clients end up feeling exploited? I felt instantly protective of the profession of psychology and psychotherapy, as well as the clients who seek it out.
The truth is that good therapy is one of the most wonderful and life-changing experiences a person can have, and I hate to think that therapy will ultimately seem like a dog-and-pony show that's full of emotional fireworks or, God forbid, turning over tables, which occurred on a Real Housewives of New Jersey episode on the same network. Simply put, the show worries me for fear of the reputation of psychotherapy. I can see both positives and negatives to showing excerpts of therapy sessions, provided that the client and therapist and doing it for the right reasons: plain and simple, to help themselves and show the viewing audience that they can get good help, too. So, what about showing the private lives of therapists? With that, too, I can see the positives and negatives.
Because there is a power differential between a therapist and a client, the client can sometimes idealize the therapist, despite the fact that the client consciously understands the therapist is a real person, with faults and all like everybody else. Unconsciously, however, the power differential can cause the client to see the therapist as perfectly well balanced, and that's never true. In this way, showing the real-life side of the therapist can be a positive. But we're talking about reality TV here, so we must discuss the possibility that the therapists might end up looking a little unprofessional or, worse, insane in the membrane. (Remember that song from the 90s?)
The greatest possible danger in showcasing the lives of therapists is that the focus on the therapist takes the focus away from the client. It's hard to say where the future reputation of psychotherapy is headed given its new incarnations (reality TV, telemedicine, and even online therapy), but talking about it as a professional community is important. After all, we need to practice what we preach to our clients: It's all about insight and understanding the motivations.
Q. According to the author, a positive of showing therapy on television is:
  • a)
    It allows people to understand therapists are human too.
  • b)
    It allows people a chance to realize that they can get help too, if they need it.
  • c)
    It breaks the taboo against therapy.
  • d)
    It makes the subject of psychotherapy accessible.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the quest...
Refer to the following extract from the passage: I can see both positives and negatives to showing excerpts of therapy sessions, provided that the client and therapist and doing it for the right reasons: plain and simple, to help themselves and show the viewing audience that they can get good help, too. So, what about showing the private lives of therapists? With that, too, I can see the positives and negatives.
fAccording to the author of the passage, which of the following are true about therapy? The above explains the positive of showing therapy on television that it allows people a chance to realize that they can get help too.
Hence, the correct option is (b).
ositive_Mark: 3
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.Let's be honest: The change has been coming for a while. Reality television has inserted itself into the field of psychology as countless shows over the years have begun to use psychotherapists as a part of their cast. Therapy has long been a subject of at least mild intrigue because what is said to the therapist behind closed doors - well, one never really knows unless you're either the client or the therapist. For the most part, the psychotherapy room has historically acted as a sacred chamber, the rare place where the client feels safe and listened to, and the therapist acts as the supportive mirror, guide, and confidant.The first reality show I ever saw which a therapist, Breaking Bonaduce (2005), had focused on the life of former TV star Danny Bonaduce. I remember thinking at the time how unusual it was that a therapist was actually having a session with clients - drumroll...and cameras! - in the same room. Back then, I didn't think too much of it, probably dismissing psychotherapy on TV as a passing fad. (It is worth mentioning, however, that the therapy I saw conducted on the show was actually pretty good.) Over the years, we have seen more therapists in reality television and audiences have sat through excerpts of more therapy sessions than I can - or want to - count. As the medium of TV therapy has become more common - heck, even expected on your average reality show - it's caused me to reflect on 1) what possesses the clients to be interested in venting their problems in such a public way, and 2) what possesses the therapists to want to show the therapy with their clients on TV. When it comes to the clients' motivations, I have heard many people say, "Oh, they just want attention." First, I'm not sure it's that simple.I give psychotherapy clients an awful lot of credit for having the strength and courage to work on their issues, and I see it as my job as a therapist to protect them and their (often potentially) vulnerable feelings. Even if a client of mine said he wanted to appear on television in a therapy session, I'd have to really think about whether it would be good for him or her. Perhaps for some it would be okay, while it would be problematic for others? My sense, although no one can say for sure, is that it is probably ideal for a client to discuss their issues with the world later, once they're out of the woods and can look back on a hard time with the solace of knowing they're stronger now. Nevertheless, I've worked with clients on talk shows (e.g., The Doctors) where cameras documented their issues (e.g., problems with road rag e) as well as my interventions to help them. In some ways, that's not so different from reality TV therapy, right?Which brings us to L.A. Shrinks, the new show on BRAVO. The show, instead of focusing exclusively on the lives of the clients, also focuses on three therapists and - wait for it - their private lives! The show gives the audience a backstage pass into the personal lives of the therapists, and includes footage of emotional and dramatic moments for each of the therapists. Quite honestly, this show takes psychotherapists on television to another level. Incidentally, casting people for the show contacted me a while ago and asked me if I would be interested in trying out for the show. I said "no" because the idea of the show confused me: Would it bring the usual magic of reality TV, replete with crafted editing that makes the therapists look nuts? Would my clients end up feeling exploited? I felt instantly protective of the profession of psychology and psychotherapy, as well as the clients who seek it out.The truth is that good therapy is one of the most wonderful and life-changing experiences a person can have, and I hate to think that therapy will ultimately seem like a dog-and-pony show that's full of emotional fireworks or, God forbid, turning over tables, which occurred on a Real Housewives of New Jersey episode on the same network. Simply put, the show worries me for fear of the reputation of psychotherapy. I can see both positives and negatives to showing excerpts of therapy sessions, provided that the client and therapist and doing it for the right reasons: plain and simple, to help themselves and show the viewing audience that they can get good help, too. So, what about showing the private lives of therapists? With that, too, I can see the positives and negatives.Because there is a power differential between a therapist and a client, the client can sometimes idealize the therapist, despite the fact that the client consciously understands the therapist is a real person, with faults and all like everybody else. Unconsciously, however, the power differential can cause the client to see the therapist as perfectly well balanced, and that's never true. In this way, showing the real-life side of the therapist can be a positive. But we're talking about reality TV here, so we must discuss the possibility that the therapists might end up looking a little unprofessional or, worse, insane in the membrane. (Remember that song from the 90s?)The greatest possible danger in showcasing the lives of therapists is that the focus on the therapist takes the focus away from the client. It's hard to say where the future reputation of psychotherapy is headed given its new incarnations (reality TV, telemedicine, and even online therapy), but talking about it as a professional community is important. After all, we need to practice what we preach to our clients: It's all about insight and understanding the motivations.According to the author of the passage, which of the following are true about therapy?I. Therapy has the power to alter the life of an individual.II. Clients, without being aware of it, can begin to view the therapist as someone without any issues of his own.III. Therapy, over the years, has gained more prominence on TV.IV. To begin with, the author did not think therapy would last on TV.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.Let's be honest: The change has been coming for a while. Reality television has inserted itself into the field of psychology as countless shows over the years have begun to use psychotherapists as a part of their cast. Therapy has long been a subject of at least mild intrigue because what is said to the therapist behind closed doors - well, one never really knows unless you're either the client or the therapist. For the most part, the psychotherapy room has historically acted as a sacred chamber, the rare place where the client feels safe and listened to, and the therapist acts as the supportive mirror, guide, and confidant.The first reality show I ever saw which a therapist, Breaking Bonaduce (2005), had focused on the life of former TV star Danny Bonaduce. I remember thinking at the time how unusual it was that a therapist was actually having a session with clients - drumroll...and cameras! - in the same room. Back then, I didn't think too much of it, probably dismissing psychotherapy on TV as a passing fad. (It is worth mentioning, however, that the therapy I saw conducted on the show was actually pretty good.) Over the years, we have seen more therapists in reality television and audiences have sat through excerpts of more therapy sessions than I can - or want to - count. As the medium of TV therapy has become more common - heck, even expected on your average reality show - it's caused me to reflect on 1) what possesses the clients to be interested in venting their problems in such a public way, and 2) what possesses the therapists to want to show the therapy with their clients on TV. When it comes to the clients' motivations, I have heard many people say, "Oh, they just want attention." First, I'm not sure it's that simple.I give psychotherapy clients an awful lot of credit for having the strength and courage to work on their issues, and I see it as my job as a therapist to protect them and their (often potentially) vulnerable feelings. Even if a client of mine said he wanted to appear on television in a therapy session, I'd have to really think about whether it would be good for him or her. Perhaps for some it would be okay, while it would be problematic for others? My sense, although no one can say for sure, is that it is probably ideal for a client to discuss their issues with the world later, once they're out of the woods and can look back on a hard time with the solace of knowing they're stronger now. Nevertheless, I've worked with clients on talk shows (e.g., The Doctors) where cameras documented their issues (e.g., problems with road rag e) as well as my interventions to help them. In some ways, that's not so different from reality TV therapy, right?Which brings us to L.A. Shrinks, the new show on BRAVO. The show, instead of focusing exclusively on the lives of the clients, also focuses on three therapists and - wait for it - their private lives! The show gives the audience a backstage pass into the personal lives of the therapists, and includes footage of emotional and dramatic moments for each of the therapists. Quite honestly, this show takes psychotherapists on television to another level. Incidentally, casting people for the show contacted me a while ago and asked me if I would be interested in trying out for the show. I said "no" because the idea of the show confused me: Would it bring the usual magic of reality TV, replete with crafted editing that makes the therapists look nuts? Would my clients end up feeling exploited? I felt instantly protective of the profession of psychology and psychotherapy, as well as the clients who seek it out.The truth is that good therapy is one of the most wonderful and life-changing experiences a person can have, and I hate to think that therapy will ultimately seem like a dog-and-pony show that's full of emotional fireworks or, God forbid, turning over tables, which occurred on a Real Housewives of New Jersey episode on the same network. Simply put, the show worries me for fear of the reputation of psychotherapy. I can see both positives and negatives to showing excerpts of therapy sessions, provided that the client and therapist and doing it for the right reasons: plain and simple, to help themselves and show the viewing audience that they can get good help, too. So, what about showing the private lives of therapists? With that, too, I can see the positives and negatives.Because there is a power differential between a therapist and a client, the client can sometimes idealize the therapist, despite the fact that the client consciously understands the therapist is a real person, with faults and all like everybody else. Unconsciously, however, the power differential can cause the client to see the therapist as perfectly well balanced, and that's never true. In this way, showing the real-life side of the therapist can be a positive. But we're talking about reality TV here, so we must discuss the possibility that the therapists might end up looking a little unprofessional or, worse, insane in the membrane. (Remember that song from the 90s?)The greatest possible danger in showcasing the lives of therapists is that the focus on the therapist takes the focus away from the client. It's hard to say where the future reputation of psychotherapy is headed given its new incarnations (reality TV, telemedicine, and even online therapy), but talking about it as a professional community is important. After all, we need to practice what we preach to our clients: It's all about insight and understanding the motivations.Q. In what context does the author use the phrase "a dog-and-pony show"?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.Let's be honest: The change has been coming for a while. Reality television has inserted itself into the field of psychology as countless shows over the years have begun to use psychotherapists as a part of their cast. Therapy has long been a subject of at least mild intrigue because what is said to the therapist behind closed doors - well, one never really knows unless you're either the client or the therapist. For the most part, the psychotherapy room has historically acted as a sacred chamber, the rare place where the client feels safe and listened to, and the therapist acts as the supportive mirror, guide, and confidant.The first reality show I ever saw which a therapist, Breaking Bonaduce (2005), had focused on the life of former TV star Danny Bonaduce. I remember thinking at the time how unusual it was that a therapist was actually having a session with clients - drumroll...and cameras! - in the same room. Back then, I didn't think too much of it, probably dismissing psychotherapy on TV as a passing fad. (It is worth mentioning, however, that the therapy I saw conducted on the show was actually pretty good.) Over the years, we have seen more therapists in reality television and audiences have sat through excerpts of more therapy sessions than I can - or want to - count. As the medium of TV therapy has become more common - heck, even expected on your average reality show - it's caused me to reflect on 1) what possesses the clients to be interested in venting their problems in such a public way, and 2) what possesses the therapists to want to show the therapy with their clients on TV. When it comes to the clients' motivations, I have heard many people say, "Oh, they just want attention." First, I'm not sure it's that simple.I give psychotherapy clients an awful lot of credit for having the strength and courage to work on their issues, and I see it as my job as a therapist to protect them and their (often potentially) vulnerable feelings. Even if a client of mine said he wanted to appear on television in a therapy session, I'd have to really think about whether it would be good for him or her. Perhaps for some it would be okay, while it would be problematic for others? My sense, although no one can say for sure, is that it is probably ideal for a client to discuss their issues with the world later, once they're out of the woods and can look back on a hard time with the solace of knowing they're stronger now. Nevertheless, I've worked with clients on talk shows (e.g., The Doctors) where cameras documented their issues (e.g., problems with road rag e) as well as my interventions to help them. In some ways, that's not so different from reality TV therapy, right?Which brings us to L.A. Shrinks, the new show on BRAVO. The show, instead of focusing exclusively on the lives of the clients, also focuses on three therapists and - wait for it - their private lives! The show gives the audience a backstage pass into the personal lives of the therapists, and includes footage of emotional and dramatic moments for each of the therapists. Quite honestly, this show takes psychotherapists on television to another level. Incidentally, casting people for the show contacted me a while ago and asked me if I would be interested in trying out for the show. I said "no" because the idea of the show confused me: Would it bring the usual magic of reality TV, replete with crafted editing that makes the therapists look nuts? Would my clients end up feeling exploited? I felt instantly protective of the profession of psychology and psychotherapy, as well as the clients who seek it out.The truth is that good therapy is one of the most wonderful and life-changing experiences a person can have, and I hate to think that therapy will ultimately seem like a dog-and-pony show that's full of emotional fireworks or, God forbid, turning over tables, which occurred on a Real Housewives of New Jersey episode on the same network. Simply put, the show worries me for fear of the reputation of psychotherapy. I can see both positives and negatives to showing excerpts of therapy sessions, provided that the client and therapist and doing it for the right reasons: plain and simple, to help themselves and show the viewing audience that they can get good help, too. So, what about showing the private lives of therapists? With that, too, I can see the positives and negatives.Because there is a power differential between a therapist and a client, the client can sometimes idealize the therapist, despite the fact that the client consciously understands the therapist is a real person, with faults and all like everybody else. Unconsciously, however, the power differential can cause the client to see the therapist as perfectly well balanced, and that's never true. In this way, showing the real-life side of the therapist can be a positive. But we're talking about reality TV here, so we must discuss the possibility that the therapists might end up looking a little unprofessional or, worse, insane in the membrane. (Remember that song from the 90s?)The greatest possible danger in showcasing the lives of therapists is that the focus on the therapist takes the focus away from the client. It's hard to say where the future reputation of psychotherapy is headed given its new incarnations (reality TV, telemedicine, and even online therapy), but talking about it as a professional community is important. After all, we need to practice what we preach to our clients: It's all about insight and understanding the motivations.Q. It can be gauged from the passage that the author of the passage has the following feelings towards L.A. Shrinks, the new show on BRAVO

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.Burawoy divides sociology into four distinct types professional, critical, public, and policy distinguished by audience (academic versus nonacademi c) and forms of knowledge (instrumental versus reflexiv e). Many commentators have noted that these central concepts anchoring his discussion are useful but ambiguous. As feminist sociologists who engage in forms of public sociology, we are concerned about the ambiguities of these concepts. In branding professional sociology as instrumental academic research, Burawoy elevates it above all other forms in his typology as the core of the discipline, contrary to his own efforts to challenge this hierarchy of evaluation. Professional sociology, he writes, provides legitimacy, expertise, distinctive problem definitions, relevant bodies of knowledge and techniques for analyzing data. An effective public or policy sociology is not hostile to, but depends upon the professional sociology that lies at the core of our disciplinary field. An implication of his analysis is that good research is only done in the sphere of professional sociology and that this sociology leads the other sociologies: only professionally oriented, disengaged research is conducted with rigour and is capable of yielding methodological and theoretical innovation.Read through a much earlier critique of trends in US sociology that included pleas for critical public engagement, Burawoys professional sociology brings to mind the categories of abstracted empiricism and grand theory that C. Wright Mills so trenchantly critiqued and that most feminist theories and methodologies have sought to overcome. In addition, despite his efforts to provincialize US sociology, Burawoys 2x2 table can be interpreted as a Parsonian-type model that intends to apply to sociology everywhere while most closely reflecting a particular kind of US sociology. This form of US sociology is formalistically professionalized, especially at the more elite research universities as distinct from being professional and results in institutionalized practices that are unnecessarily rigid and exclusionary. Rather than using this model to prescribe what sociology should be, McLaughlin and Turcotte usefully argue that it should be turned into empirical, researchable questions that determine the size and influence of each type of sociology within different disciplinary, institutional, and national contexts. As feminist sociologists, we are also concerned about other problems of interpretation in Burawoys typology. Burawoy characterizes each ideal type as a division of labour that exists, normatively, in reciprocal interdependence. He suggests that most sociologists concentrate their efforts in one type although he grants that they may simultaneously inhabit more than one of the cells or change from one to another over their careers. While allowing for internal complexity of each type (e.g., professional sociology can be reflexive at times, not just instrumental) and for permeable boundaries between the four types, Burawoys model can be interpreted as overly bounded, static, and nonvariable. It does not appear, for example, to adequately account for such multidisciplinary fields as social gerontology or feminist sociology in which the distinctions between professional, critical, policy, and public domains are blurred. In attempting to integrate sociology and legitimate public sociology, Burawoy glosses over the contradictions and tensions between the four types he identifies, particularly vis-a-vis the longstanding methodological feuds between positivism, critical theory, and postpositivism. As feminists aware of sociologys history of exclusions in the production of knowledge, we are wary of hierarchies that Burawoys typology may initiate or reproduce that rest on a narrowly cast US version of professional sociology. In contrast to his concept of professional sociology as an engagement with specific social theories (that are not critical) or with a limited range of methodological approaches to research (that are neither reflexive nor involve publics or policymaking), we suggest looking for a more inclusive definition. A more inclusive definition of professional sociology might, for example, involve particular credentials (a graduate degree in sociology) and the undertaking of specific activities (such as teaching sociology in a university or college and/or engaging in rigorous ethical research and publishing). This definition embraces a diversity of orientations, methods, institutional locations, and public and policy engagements Equally important, however, is the fact that Burawoys identification of four distinct forms of sociology is itself questionable. As Ericson notes, sociology is (or perhaps should be) simultaneously professional, critical, public, and policy relevant. Whether or not sociology does or should take these forms simultaneously, and how such research is undertaken, requires discussion and empirical investigation. As part of this process, we describe below our research to provide examples of the simultaneous undertaking of professional, critical, policy, and public sociology.We also take issue with the Gramscian separation of the distinct spheres of state, economy, and civil society that underlies Burawoys discussion. In sharply dividing the subject matter of the cognate fields of political science, economics, and sociology with their respective attention to the state, market, and civil society his model ignores the growth of interdisciplinary research in which many of us have long engaged. Interestingly, this division also entirely ignores other disciplines, such as anthropology, for which a parallel debate (the call for more public anthropology) predates by several years Burawoys intervention (for example, in Chicago in 1999, the topic of the American Anthropological Association forum was Public Anthropology).As Calhoun argues, rather than reinforcing disciplinary boundaries and social dichotomies, we should be arguing that state and market are social. Burawoys model tends to demonize the state (and policy intervention/state reform) as well as the market, while romanticizing civil society (including giving it a progressive spin). This ignores both the multisited institutional locations of sociological research and the complex interplay between fields of power, agency, and social change. Feminist theorizing shows that civil society is a complex concept that consists of both the public and the private spheres structured as male-dominated, with the private often disappearing in discourse on civil society. Burawoys focus on civil society can be interpreted as reinvoking the public and private dichotomy of Western societies that has been the subject of so much feminist critique, especially in its argument that family and community life (sites of civil society) cannot be understood as separate from political and economic spheres. Significant feminist theory and research have made a concerted effort to argue for a reconceptualization of these spheres acknowledging their interpenetration, rather than isolation from one another.Where we are in fundamental agreement with Burawoy is in locating the central questions for assessing the state of sociology in the US, Canada, and elsewhere by asking sociology for whom? and sociology for what? These questions require reflexivity that positions social theories, research methodologies, and indeed researchers within contexts of power and social location. Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociology. Defining reflexivity, however, is no simple task. According to Burawoy (2004:1606), reflexive knowledge is communicative action that aspires to a dialogic character, although mutuality and reciprocity are often difficult to achieve in practice. Reflexivity involves value discussion concerning the ethical goals for which research may be mobilized and stimulates public discussions about the possible meanings of the good society.Recent feminist epistemological debates have been particularly fruitful in contributing to and expanding upon critical theorys understanding of reflexivity. Critical feminist sociological debates, informed especially by engagement with extra-academic communities concerned about social justice for socially marginalized groups, have helped to shape our research.Q.What is the central idea of the passage?

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.Burawoy divides sociology into four distinct types professional, critical, public, and policy distinguished by audience (academic versus nonacademi c) and forms of knowledge (instrumental versus reflexiv e). Many commentators have noted that these central concepts anchoring his discussion are useful but ambiguous. As feminist sociologists who engage in forms of public sociology, we are concerned about the ambiguities of these concepts. In branding professional sociology as instrumental academic research, Burawoy elevates it above all other forms in his typology as the core of the discipline, contrary to his own efforts to challenge this hierarchy of evaluation. Professional sociology, he writes, provides legitimacy, expertise, distinctive problem definitions, relevant bodies of knowledge and techniques for analyzing data. An effective public or policy sociology is not hostile to, but depends upon the professional sociology that lies at the core of our disciplinary field. An implication of his analysis is that good research is only done in the sphere of professional sociology and that this sociology leads the other sociologies: only professionally oriented, disengaged research is conducted with rigour and is capable of yielding methodological and theoretical innovation.Read through a much earlier critique of trends in US sociology that included pleas for critical public engagement, Burawoys professional sociology brings to mind the categories of abstracted empiricism and grand theory that C. Wright Mills so trenchantly critiqued and that most feminist theories and methodologies have sought to overcome. In addition, despite his efforts to provincialize US sociology, Burawoys 2x2 table can be interpreted as a Parsonian-type model that intends to apply to sociology everywhere while most closely reflecting a particular kind of US sociology. This form of US sociology is formalistically professionalized, especially at the more elite research universities as distinct from being professional and results in institutionalized practices that are unnecessarily rigid and exclusionary. Rather than using this model to prescribe what sociology should be, McLaughlin and Turcotte usefully argue that it should be turned into empirical, researchable questions that determine the size and influence of each type of sociology within different disciplinary, institutional, and national contexts. As feminist sociologists, we are also concerned about other problems of interpretation in Burawoys typology. Burawoy characterizes each ideal type as a division of labour that exists, normatively, in reciprocal interdependence. He suggests that most sociologists concentrate their efforts in one type although he grants that they may simultaneously inhabit more than one of the cells or change from one to another over their careers. While allowing for internal complexity of each type (e.g., professional sociology can be reflexive at times, not just instrumental) and for permeable boundaries between the four types, Burawoys model can be interpreted as overly bounded, static, and nonvariable. It does not appear, for example, to adequately account for such multidisciplinary fields as social gerontology or feminist sociology in which the distinctions between professional, critical, policy, and public domains are blurred. In attempting to integrate sociology and legitimate public sociology, Burawoy glosses over the contradictions and tensions between the four types he identifies, particularly vis-a-vis the longstanding methodological feuds between positivism, critical theory, and postpositivism. As feminists aware of sociologys history of exclusions in the production of knowledge, we are wary of hierarchies that Burawoys typology may initiate or reproduce that rest on a narrowly cast US version of professional sociology. In contrast to his concept of professional sociology as an engagement with specific social theories (that are not critical) or with a limited range of methodological approaches to research (that are neither reflexive nor involve publics or policymaking), we suggest looking for a more inclusive definition. A more inclusive definition of professional sociology might, for example, involve particular credentials (a graduate degree in sociology) and the undertaking of specific activities (such as teaching sociology in a university or college and/or engaging in rigorous ethical research and publishing). This definition embraces a diversity of orientations, methods, institutional locations, and public and policy engagements Equally important, however, is the fact that Burawoys identification of four distinct forms of sociology is itself questionable. As Ericson notes, sociology is (or perhaps should be) simultaneously professional, critical, public, and policy relevant. Whether or not sociology does or should take these forms simultaneously, and how such research is undertaken, requires discussion and empirical investigation. As part of this process, we describe below our research to provide examples of the simultaneous undertaking of professional, critical, policy, and public sociology.We also take issue with the Gramscian separation of the distinct spheres of state, economy, and civil society that underlies Burawoys discussion. In sharply dividing the subject matter of the cognate fields of political science, economics, and sociology with their respective attention to the state, market, and civil society his model ignores the growth of interdisciplinary research in which many of us have long engaged. Interestingly, this division also entirely ignores other disciplines, such as anthropology, for which a parallel debate (the call for more public anthropology) predates by several years Burawoys intervention (for example, in Chicago in 1999, the topic of the American Anthropological Association forum was Public Anthropology).As Calhoun argues, rather than reinforcing disciplinary boundaries and social dichotomies, we should be arguing that state and market are social. Burawoys model tends to demonize the state (and policy intervention/state reform) as well as the market, while romanticizing civil society (including giving it a progressive spin). This ignores both the multisited institutional locations of sociological research and the complex interplay between fields of power, agency, and social change. Feminist theorizing shows that civil society is a complex concept that consists of both the public and the private spheres structured as male-dominated, with the private often disappearing in discourse on civil society. Burawoys focus on civil society can be interpreted as reinvoking the public and private dichotomy of Western societies that has been the subject of so much feminist critique, especially in its argument that family and community life (sites of civil society) cannot be understood as separate from political and economic spheres. Significant feminist theory and research have made a concerted effort to argue for a reconceptualization of these spheres acknowledging their interpenetration, rather than isolation from one another.Where we are in fundamental agreement with Burawoy is in locating the central questions for assessing the state of sociology in the US, Canada, and elsewhere by asking sociology for whom? and sociology for what? These questions require reflexivity that positions social theories, research methodologies, and indeed researchers within contexts of power and social location. Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociology. Defining reflexivity, however, is no simple task. According to Burawoy (2004:1606), reflexive knowledge is communicative action that aspires to a dialogic character, although mutuality and reciprocity are often difficult to achieve in practice. Reflexivity involves value discussion concerning the ethical goals for which research may be mobilized and stimulates public discussions about the possible meanings of the good society.Recent feminist epistemological debates have been particularly fruitful in contributing to and expanding upon critical theorys understanding of reflexivity. Critical feminist sociological debates, informed especially by engagement with extra-academic communities concerned about social justice for socially marginalized groups, have helped to shape our research.Q.Which of the following is Feminist sociology not in agreement with?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.Let's be honest: The change has been coming for a while. Reality television has inserted itself into the field of psychology as countless shows over the years have begun to use psychotherapists as a part of their cast. Therapy has long been a subject of at least mild intrigue because what is said to the therapist behind closed doors - well, one never really knows unless you're either the client or the therapist. For the most part, the psychotherapy room has historically acted as a sacred chamber, the rare place where the client feels safe and listened to, and the therapist acts as the supportive mirror, guide, and confidant.The first reality show I ever saw which a therapist, Breaking Bonaduce (2005), had focused on the life of former TV star Danny Bonaduce. I remember thinking at the time how unusual it was that a therapist was actually having a session with clients - drumroll...and cameras! - in the same room. Back then, I didn't think too much of it, probably dismissing psychotherapy on TV as a passing fad. (It is worth mentioning, however, that the therapy I saw conducted on the show was actually pretty good.) Over the years, we have seen more therapists in reality television and audiences have sat through excerpts of more therapy sessions than I can - or want to - count. As the medium of TV therapy has become more common - heck, even expected on your average reality show - it's caused me to reflect on 1) what possesses the clients to be interested in venting their problems in such a public way, and 2) what possesses the therapists to want to show the therapy with their clients on TV. When it comes to the clients' motivations, I have heard many people say, "Oh, they just want attention." First, I'm not sure it's that simple.I give psychotherapy clients an awful lot of credit for having the strength and courage to work on their issues, and I see it as my job as a therapist to protect them and their (often potentially) vulnerable feelings. Even if a client of mine said he wanted to appear on television in a therapy session, I'd have to really think about whether it would be good for him or her. Perhaps for some it would be okay, while it would be problematic for others? My sense, although no one can say for sure, is that it is probably ideal for a client to discuss their issues with the world later, once they're out of the woods and can look back on a hard time with the solace of knowing they're stronger now. Nevertheless, I've worked with clients on talk shows (e.g., The Doctors) where cameras documented their issues (e.g., problems with road rage) as well as my interventions to help them. In some ways, that's not so different from reality TV therapy, right?Which brings us to L.A. Shrinks, the new show on BRAVO. The show, instead of focusing exclusively on the lives of the clients, also focuses on three therapists and - wait for it - their private lives! The show gives the audience a backstage pass into the personal lives of the therapists, and includes footage of emotional and dramatic moments for each of the therapists. Quite honestly, this show takes psychotherapists on television to another level. Incidentally, casting people for the show contacted me a while ago and asked me if I would be interested in trying out for the show. I said "no" because the idea of the show confused me: Would it bring the usual magic of reality TV, replete with crafted editing that makes the therapists look nuts? Would my clients end up feeling exploited? I felt instantly protective of the profession of psychology and psychotherapy, as well as the clients who seek it out.The truth is that good therapy is one of the most wonderful and life-changing experiences a person can have, and I hate to think that therapy will ultimately seem like a dog-and-pony show that's full of emotional fireworks or, God forbid, turning over tables, which occurred on a Real Housewives of New Jersey episode on the same network. Simply put, the show worries me for fear of the reputation of psychotherapy. I can see both positives and negatives to showing excerpts of therapy sessions, provided that the client and therapist and doing it for the right reasons: plain and simple, to help themselves and show the viewing audience that they can get good help, too. So, what about showing the private lives of therapists? With that, too, I can see the positives and negatives.Because there is a power differential between a therapist and a client, the client can sometimes idealize the therapist, despite the fact that the client consciously understands the therapist is a real person, with faults and all like everybody else. Unconsciously, however, the power differential can cause the client to see the therapist as perfectly well balanced, and that's never true. In this way, showing the real-life side of the therapist can be a positive. But we're talking about reality TV here, so we must discuss the possibility that the therapists might end up looking a little unprofessional or, worse, insane in the membrane. (Remember that song from the 90s?)The greatest possible danger in showcasing the lives of therapists is that the focus on the therapist takes the focus away from the client. It's hard to say where the future reputation of psychotherapy is headed given its new incarnations (reality TV, telemedicine, and even online therapy), but talking about it as a professional community is important. After all, we need to practice what we preach to our clients: It's all about insight and understanding the motivations.Q. According to the author, a positive of showing therapy on television is:a)It allows people to understand therapists are human too.b)It allows people a chance to realize that they can get help too, if they need it.c)It breaks the taboo against therapy.d)It makes the subject of psychotherapy accessible.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.Let's be honest: The change has been coming for a while. Reality television has inserted itself into the field of psychology as countless shows over the years have begun to use psychotherapists as a part of their cast. Therapy has long been a subject of at least mild intrigue because what is said to the therapist behind closed doors - well, one never really knows unless you're either the client or the therapist. For the most part, the psychotherapy room has historically acted as a sacred chamber, the rare place where the client feels safe and listened to, and the therapist acts as the supportive mirror, guide, and confidant.The first reality show I ever saw which a therapist, Breaking Bonaduce (2005), had focused on the life of former TV star Danny Bonaduce. I remember thinking at the time how unusual it was that a therapist was actually having a session with clients - drumroll...and cameras! - in the same room. Back then, I didn't think too much of it, probably dismissing psychotherapy on TV as a passing fad. (It is worth mentioning, however, that the therapy I saw conducted on the show was actually pretty good.) Over the years, we have seen more therapists in reality television and audiences have sat through excerpts of more therapy sessions than I can - or want to - count. As the medium of TV therapy has become more common - heck, even expected on your average reality show - it's caused me to reflect on 1) what possesses the clients to be interested in venting their problems in such a public way, and 2) what possesses the therapists to want to show the therapy with their clients on TV. When it comes to the clients' motivations, I have heard many people say, "Oh, they just want attention." First, I'm not sure it's that simple.I give psychotherapy clients an awful lot of credit for having the strength and courage to work on their issues, and I see it as my job as a therapist to protect them and their (often potentially) vulnerable feelings. Even if a client of mine said he wanted to appear on television in a therapy session, I'd have to really think about whether it would be good for him or her. Perhaps for some it would be okay, while it would be problematic for others? My sense, although no one can say for sure, is that it is probably ideal for a client to discuss their issues with the world later, once they're out of the woods and can look back on a hard time with the solace of knowing they're stronger now. Nevertheless, I've worked with clients on talk shows (e.g., The Doctors) where cameras documented their issues (e.g., problems with road rage) as well as my interventions to help them. In some ways, that's not so different from reality TV therapy, right?Which brings us to L.A. Shrinks, the new show on BRAVO. The show, instead of focusing exclusively on the lives of the clients, also focuses on three therapists and - wait for it - their private lives! The show gives the audience a backstage pass into the personal lives of the therapists, and includes footage of emotional and dramatic moments for each of the therapists. Quite honestly, this show takes psychotherapists on television to another level. Incidentally, casting people for the show contacted me a while ago and asked me if I would be interested in trying out for the show. I said "no" because the idea of the show confused me: Would it bring the usual magic of reality TV, replete with crafted editing that makes the therapists look nuts? Would my clients end up feeling exploited? I felt instantly protective of the profession of psychology and psychotherapy, as well as the clients who seek it out.The truth is that good therapy is one of the most wonderful and life-changing experiences a person can have, and I hate to think that therapy will ultimately seem like a dog-and-pony show that's full of emotional fireworks or, God forbid, turning over tables, which occurred on a Real Housewives of New Jersey episode on the same network. Simply put, the show worries me for fear of the reputation of psychotherapy. I can see both positives and negatives to showing excerpts of therapy sessions, provided that the client and therapist and doing it for the right reasons: plain and simple, to help themselves and show the viewing audience that they can get good help, too. So, what about showing the private lives of therapists? With that, too, I can see the positives and negatives.Because there is a power differential between a therapist and a client, the client can sometimes idealize the therapist, despite the fact that the client consciously understands the therapist is a real person, with faults and all like everybody else. Unconsciously, however, the power differential can cause the client to see the therapist as perfectly well balanced, and that's never true. In this way, showing the real-life side of the therapist can be a positive. But we're talking about reality TV here, so we must discuss the possibility that the therapists might end up looking a little unprofessional or, worse, insane in the membrane. (Remember that song from the 90s?)The greatest possible danger in showcasing the lives of therapists is that the focus on the therapist takes the focus away from the client. It's hard to say where the future reputation of psychotherapy is headed given its new incarnations (reality TV, telemedicine, and even online therapy), but talking about it as a professional community is important. After all, we need to practice what we preach to our clients: It's all about insight and understanding the motivations.Q. According to the author, a positive of showing therapy on television is:a)It allows people to understand therapists are human too.b)It allows people a chance to realize that they can get help too, if they need it.c)It breaks the taboo against therapy.d)It makes the subject of psychotherapy accessible.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 Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.Let's be honest: The change has been coming for a while. Reality television has inserted itself into the field of psychology as countless shows over the years have begun to use psychotherapists as a part of their cast. Therapy has long been a subject of at least mild intrigue because what is said to the therapist behind closed doors - well, one never really knows unless you're either the client or the therapist. For the most part, the psychotherapy room has historically acted as a sacred chamber, the rare place where the client feels safe and listened to, and the therapist acts as the supportive mirror, guide, and confidant.The first reality show I ever saw which a therapist, Breaking Bonaduce (2005), had focused on the life of former TV star Danny Bonaduce. I remember thinking at the time how unusual it was that a therapist was actually having a session with clients - drumroll...and cameras! - in the same room. Back then, I didn't think too much of it, probably dismissing psychotherapy on TV as a passing fad. (It is worth mentioning, however, that the therapy I saw conducted on the show was actually pretty good.) Over the years, we have seen more therapists in reality television and audiences have sat through excerpts of more therapy sessions than I can - or want to - count. As the medium of TV therapy has become more common - heck, even expected on your average reality show - it's caused me to reflect on 1) what possesses the clients to be interested in venting their problems in such a public way, and 2) what possesses the therapists to want to show the therapy with their clients on TV. When it comes to the clients' motivations, I have heard many people say, "Oh, they just want attention." First, I'm not sure it's that simple.I give psychotherapy clients an awful lot of credit for having the strength and courage to work on their issues, and I see it as my job as a therapist to protect them and their (often potentially) vulnerable feelings. Even if a client of mine said he wanted to appear on television in a therapy session, I'd have to really think about whether it would be good for him or her. Perhaps for some it would be okay, while it would be problematic for others? My sense, although no one can say for sure, is that it is probably ideal for a client to discuss their issues with the world later, once they're out of the woods and can look back on a hard time with the solace of knowing they're stronger now. Nevertheless, I've worked with clients on talk shows (e.g., The Doctors) where cameras documented their issues (e.g., problems with road rage) as well as my interventions to help them. In some ways, that's not so different from reality TV therapy, right?Which brings us to L.A. Shrinks, the new show on BRAVO. The show, instead of focusing exclusively on the lives of the clients, also focuses on three therapists and - wait for it - their private lives! The show gives the audience a backstage pass into the personal lives of the therapists, and includes footage of emotional and dramatic moments for each of the therapists. Quite honestly, this show takes psychotherapists on television to another level. Incidentally, casting people for the show contacted me a while ago and asked me if I would be interested in trying out for the show. I said "no" because the idea of the show confused me: Would it bring the usual magic of reality TV, replete with crafted editing that makes the therapists look nuts? Would my clients end up feeling exploited? I felt instantly protective of the profession of psychology and psychotherapy, as well as the clients who seek it out.The truth is that good therapy is one of the most wonderful and life-changing experiences a person can have, and I hate to think that therapy will ultimately seem like a dog-and-pony show that's full of emotional fireworks or, God forbid, turning over tables, which occurred on a Real Housewives of New Jersey episode on the same network. Simply put, the show worries me for fear of the reputation of psychotherapy. I can see both positives and negatives to showing excerpts of therapy sessions, provided that the client and therapist and doing it for the right reasons: plain and simple, to help themselves and show the viewing audience that they can get good help, too. So, what about showing the private lives of therapists? With that, too, I can see the positives and negatives.Because there is a power differential between a therapist and a client, the client can sometimes idealize the therapist, despite the fact that the client consciously understands the therapist is a real person, with faults and all like everybody else. Unconsciously, however, the power differential can cause the client to see the therapist as perfectly well balanced, and that's never true. In this way, showing the real-life side of the therapist can be a positive. But we're talking about reality TV here, so we must discuss the possibility that the therapists might end up looking a little unprofessional or, worse, insane in the membrane. (Remember that song from the 90s?)The greatest possible danger in showcasing the lives of therapists is that the focus on the therapist takes the focus away from the client. It's hard to say where the future reputation of psychotherapy is headed given its new incarnations (reality TV, telemedicine, and even online therapy), but talking about it as a professional community is important. After all, we need to practice what we preach to our clients: It's all about insight and understanding the motivations.Q. According to the author, a positive of showing therapy on television is:a)It allows people to understand therapists are human too.b)It allows people a chance to realize that they can get help too, if they need it.c)It breaks the taboo against therapy.d)It makes the subject of psychotherapy accessible.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 Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.Let's be honest: The change has been coming for a while. Reality television has inserted itself into the field of psychology as countless shows over the years have begun to use psychotherapists as a part of their cast. Therapy has long been a subject of at least mild intrigue because what is said to the therapist behind closed doors - well, one never really knows unless you're either the client or the therapist. For the most part, the psychotherapy room has historically acted as a sacred chamber, the rare place where the client feels safe and listened to, and the therapist acts as the supportive mirror, guide, and confidant.The first reality show I ever saw which a therapist, Breaking Bonaduce (2005), had focused on the life of former TV star Danny Bonaduce. I remember thinking at the time how unusual it was that a therapist was actually having a session with clients - drumroll...and cameras! - in the same room. Back then, I didn't think too much of it, probably dismissing psychotherapy on TV as a passing fad. (It is worth mentioning, however, that the therapy I saw conducted on the show was actually pretty good.) Over the years, we have seen more therapists in reality television and audiences have sat through excerpts of more therapy sessions than I can - or want to - count. As the medium of TV therapy has become more common - heck, even expected on your average reality show - it's caused me to reflect on 1) what possesses the clients to be interested in venting their problems in such a public way, and 2) what possesses the therapists to want to show the therapy with their clients on TV. When it comes to the clients' motivations, I have heard many people say, "Oh, they just want attention." First, I'm not sure it's that simple.I give psychotherapy clients an awful lot of credit for having the strength and courage to work on their issues, and I see it as my job as a therapist to protect them and their (often potentially) vulnerable feelings. Even if a client of mine said he wanted to appear on television in a therapy session, I'd have to really think about whether it would be good for him or her. Perhaps for some it would be okay, while it would be problematic for others? My sense, although no one can say for sure, is that it is probably ideal for a client to discuss their issues with the world later, once they're out of the woods and can look back on a hard time with the solace of knowing they're stronger now. Nevertheless, I've worked with clients on talk shows (e.g., The Doctors) where cameras documented their issues (e.g., problems with road rage) as well as my interventions to help them. In some ways, that's not so different from reality TV therapy, right?Which brings us to L.A. Shrinks, the new show on BRAVO. The show, instead of focusing exclusively on the lives of the clients, also focuses on three therapists and - wait for it - their private lives! The show gives the audience a backstage pass into the personal lives of the therapists, and includes footage of emotional and dramatic moments for each of the therapists. Quite honestly, this show takes psychotherapists on television to another level. Incidentally, casting people for the show contacted me a while ago and asked me if I would be interested in trying out for the show. I said "no" because the idea of the show confused me: Would it bring the usual magic of reality TV, replete with crafted editing that makes the therapists look nuts? Would my clients end up feeling exploited? I felt instantly protective of the profession of psychology and psychotherapy, as well as the clients who seek it out.The truth is that good therapy is one of the most wonderful and life-changing experiences a person can have, and I hate to think that therapy will ultimately seem like a dog-and-pony show that's full of emotional fireworks or, God forbid, turning over tables, which occurred on a Real Housewives of New Jersey episode on the same network. Simply put, the show worries me for fear of the reputation of psychotherapy. I can see both positives and negatives to showing excerpts of therapy sessions, provided that the client and therapist and doing it for the right reasons: plain and simple, to help themselves and show the viewing audience that they can get good help, too. So, what about showing the private lives of therapists? With that, too, I can see the positives and negatives.Because there is a power differential between a therapist and a client, the client can sometimes idealize the therapist, despite the fact that the client consciously understands the therapist is a real person, with faults and all like everybody else. Unconsciously, however, the power differential can cause the client to see the therapist as perfectly well balanced, and that's never true. In this way, showing the real-life side of the therapist can be a positive. But we're talking about reality TV here, so we must discuss the possibility that the therapists might end up looking a little unprofessional or, worse, insane in the membrane. (Remember that song from the 90s?)The greatest possible danger in showcasing the lives of therapists is that the focus on the therapist takes the focus away from the client. It's hard to say where the future reputation of psychotherapy is headed given its new incarnations (reality TV, telemedicine, and even online therapy), but talking about it as a professional community is important. After all, we need to practice what we preach to our clients: It's all about insight and understanding the motivations.Q. According to the author, a positive of showing therapy on television is:a)It allows people to understand therapists are human too.b)It allows people a chance to realize that they can get help too, if they need it.c)It breaks the taboo against therapy.d)It makes the subject of psychotherapy accessible.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.Let's be honest: The change has been coming for a while. Reality television has inserted itself into the field of psychology as countless shows over the years have begun to use psychotherapists as a part of their cast. Therapy has long been a subject of at least mild intrigue because what is said to the therapist behind closed doors - well, one never really knows unless you're either the client or the therapist. For the most part, the psychotherapy room has historically acted as a sacred chamber, the rare place where the client feels safe and listened to, and the therapist acts as the supportive mirror, guide, and confidant.The first reality show I ever saw which a therapist, Breaking Bonaduce (2005), had focused on the life of former TV star Danny Bonaduce. I remember thinking at the time how unusual it was that a therapist was actually having a session with clients - drumroll...and cameras! - in the same room. Back then, I didn't think too much of it, probably dismissing psychotherapy on TV as a passing fad. (It is worth mentioning, however, that the therapy I saw conducted on the show was actually pretty good.) Over the years, we have seen more therapists in reality television and audiences have sat through excerpts of more therapy sessions than I can - or want to - count. As the medium of TV therapy has become more common - heck, even expected on your average reality show - it's caused me to reflect on 1) what possesses the clients to be interested in venting their problems in such a public way, and 2) what possesses the therapists to want to show the therapy with their clients on TV. When it comes to the clients' motivations, I have heard many people say, "Oh, they just want attention." First, I'm not sure it's that simple.I give psychotherapy clients an awful lot of credit for having the strength and courage to work on their issues, and I see it as my job as a therapist to protect them and their (often potentially) vulnerable feelings. Even if a client of mine said he wanted to appear on television in a therapy session, I'd have to really think about whether it would be good for him or her. Perhaps for some it would be okay, while it would be problematic for others? My sense, although no one can say for sure, is that it is probably ideal for a client to discuss their issues with the world later, once they're out of the woods and can look back on a hard time with the solace of knowing they're stronger now. Nevertheless, I've worked with clients on talk shows (e.g., The Doctors) where cameras documented their issues (e.g., problems with road rage) as well as my interventions to help them. In some ways, that's not so different from reality TV therapy, right?Which brings us to L.A. Shrinks, the new show on BRAVO. The show, instead of focusing exclusively on the lives of the clients, also focuses on three therapists and - wait for it - their private lives! The show gives the audience a backstage pass into the personal lives of the therapists, and includes footage of emotional and dramatic moments for each of the therapists. Quite honestly, this show takes psychotherapists on television to another level. Incidentally, casting people for the show contacted me a while ago and asked me if I would be interested in trying out for the show. I said "no" because the idea of the show confused me: Would it bring the usual magic of reality TV, replete with crafted editing that makes the therapists look nuts? Would my clients end up feeling exploited? I felt instantly protective of the profession of psychology and psychotherapy, as well as the clients who seek it out.The truth is that good therapy is one of the most wonderful and life-changing experiences a person can have, and I hate to think that therapy will ultimately seem like a dog-and-pony show that's full of emotional fireworks or, God forbid, turning over tables, which occurred on a Real Housewives of New Jersey episode on the same network. Simply put, the show worries me for fear of the reputation of psychotherapy. I can see both positives and negatives to showing excerpts of therapy sessions, provided that the client and therapist and doing it for the right reasons: plain and simple, to help themselves and show the viewing audience that they can get good help, too. So, what about showing the private lives of therapists? With that, too, I can see the positives and negatives.Because there is a power differential between a therapist and a client, the client can sometimes idealize the therapist, despite the fact that the client consciously understands the therapist is a real person, with faults and all like everybody else. Unconsciously, however, the power differential can cause the client to see the therapist as perfectly well balanced, and that's never true. In this way, showing the real-life side of the therapist can be a positive. But we're talking about reality TV here, so we must discuss the possibility that the therapists might end up looking a little unprofessional or, worse, insane in the membrane. (Remember that song from the 90s?)The greatest possible danger in showcasing the lives of therapists is that the focus on the therapist takes the focus away from the client. It's hard to say where the future reputation of psychotherapy is headed given its new incarnations (reality TV, telemedicine, and even online therapy), but talking about it as a professional community is important. After all, we need to practice what we preach to our clients: It's all about insight and understanding the motivations.Q. According to the author, a positive of showing therapy on television is:a)It allows people to understand therapists are human too.b)It allows people a chance to realize that they can get help too, if they need it.c)It breaks the taboo against therapy.d)It makes the subject of psychotherapy accessible.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 Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.Let's be honest: The change has been coming for a while. Reality television has inserted itself into the field of psychology as countless shows over the years have begun to use psychotherapists as a part of their cast. Therapy has long been a subject of at least mild intrigue because what is said to the therapist behind closed doors - well, one never really knows unless you're either the client or the therapist. For the most part, the psychotherapy room has historically acted as a sacred chamber, the rare place where the client feels safe and listened to, and the therapist acts as the supportive mirror, guide, and confidant.The first reality show I ever saw which a therapist, Breaking Bonaduce (2005), had focused on the life of former TV star Danny Bonaduce. I remember thinking at the time how unusual it was that a therapist was actually having a session with clients - drumroll...and cameras! - in the same room. Back then, I didn't think too much of it, probably dismissing psychotherapy on TV as a passing fad. (It is worth mentioning, however, that the therapy I saw conducted on the show was actually pretty good.) Over the years, we have seen more therapists in reality television and audiences have sat through excerpts of more therapy sessions than I can - or want to - count. As the medium of TV therapy has become more common - heck, even expected on your average reality show - it's caused me to reflect on 1) what possesses the clients to be interested in venting their problems in such a public way, and 2) what possesses the therapists to want to show the therapy with their clients on TV. When it comes to the clients' motivations, I have heard many people say, "Oh, they just want attention." First, I'm not sure it's that simple.I give psychotherapy clients an awful lot of credit for having the strength and courage to work on their issues, and I see it as my job as a therapist to protect them and their (often potentially) vulnerable feelings. Even if a client of mine said he wanted to appear on television in a therapy session, I'd have to really think about whether it would be good for him or her. Perhaps for some it would be okay, while it would be problematic for others? My sense, although no one can say for sure, is that it is probably ideal for a client to discuss their issues with the world later, once they're out of the woods and can look back on a hard time with the solace of knowing they're stronger now. Nevertheless, I've worked with clients on talk shows (e.g., The Doctors) where cameras documented their issues (e.g., problems with road rage) as well as my interventions to help them. In some ways, that's not so different from reality TV therapy, right?Which brings us to L.A. Shrinks, the new show on BRAVO. The show, instead of focusing exclusively on the lives of the clients, also focuses on three therapists and - wait for it - their private lives! The show gives the audience a backstage pass into the personal lives of the therapists, and includes footage of emotional and dramatic moments for each of the therapists. Quite honestly, this show takes psychotherapists on television to another level. Incidentally, casting people for the show contacted me a while ago and asked me if I would be interested in trying out for the show. I said "no" because the idea of the show confused me: Would it bring the usual magic of reality TV, replete with crafted editing that makes the therapists look nuts? Would my clients end up feeling exploited? I felt instantly protective of the profession of psychology and psychotherapy, as well as the clients who seek it out.The truth is that good therapy is one of the most wonderful and life-changing experiences a person can have, and I hate to think that therapy will ultimately seem like a dog-and-pony show that's full of emotional fireworks or, God forbid, turning over tables, which occurred on a Real Housewives of New Jersey episode on the same network. Simply put, the show worries me for fear of the reputation of psychotherapy. I can see both positives and negatives to showing excerpts of therapy sessions, provided that the client and therapist and doing it for the right reasons: plain and simple, to help themselves and show the viewing audience that they can get good help, too. So, what about showing the private lives of therapists? With that, too, I can see the positives and negatives.Because there is a power differential between a therapist and a client, the client can sometimes idealize the therapist, despite the fact that the client consciously understands the therapist is a real person, with faults and all like everybody else. Unconsciously, however, the power differential can cause the client to see the therapist as perfectly well balanced, and that's never true. In this way, showing the real-life side of the therapist can be a positive. But we're talking about reality TV here, so we must discuss the possibility that the therapists might end up looking a little unprofessional or, worse, insane in the membrane. (Remember that song from the 90s?)The greatest possible danger in showcasing the lives of therapists is that the focus on the therapist takes the focus away from the client. It's hard to say where the future reputation of psychotherapy is headed given its new incarnations (reality TV, telemedicine, and even online therapy), but talking about it as a professional community is important. After all, we need to practice what we preach to our clients: It's all about insight and understanding the motivations.Q. According to the author, a positive of showing therapy on television is:a)It allows people to understand therapists are human too.b)It allows people a chance to realize that they can get help too, if they need it.c)It breaks the taboo against therapy.d)It makes the subject of psychotherapy accessible.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.Let's be honest: The change has been coming for a while. Reality television has inserted itself into the field of psychology as countless shows over the years have begun to use psychotherapists as a part of their cast. Therapy has long been a subject of at least mild intrigue because what is said to the therapist behind closed doors - well, one never really knows unless you're either the client or the therapist. For the most part, the psychotherapy room has historically acted as a sacred chamber, the rare place where the client feels safe and listened to, and the therapist acts as the supportive mirror, guide, and confidant.The first reality show I ever saw which a therapist, Breaking Bonaduce (2005), had focused on the life of former TV star Danny Bonaduce. I remember thinking at the time how unusual it was that a therapist was actually having a session with clients - drumroll...and cameras! - in the same room. Back then, I didn't think too much of it, probably dismissing psychotherapy on TV as a passing fad. (It is worth mentioning, however, that the therapy I saw conducted on the show was actually pretty good.) Over the years, we have seen more therapists in reality television and audiences have sat through excerpts of more therapy sessions than I can - or want to - count. As the medium of TV therapy has become more common - heck, even expected on your average reality show - it's caused me to reflect on 1) what possesses the clients to be interested in venting their problems in such a public way, and 2) what possesses the therapists to want to show the therapy with their clients on TV. When it comes to the clients' motivations, I have heard many people say, "Oh, they just want attention." First, I'm not sure it's that simple.I give psychotherapy clients an awful lot of credit for having the strength and courage to work on their issues, and I see it as my job as a therapist to protect them and their (often potentially) vulnerable feelings. Even if a client of mine said he wanted to appear on television in a therapy session, I'd have to really think about whether it would be good for him or her. Perhaps for some it would be okay, while it would be problematic for others? My sense, although no one can say for sure, is that it is probably ideal for a client to discuss their issues with the world later, once they're out of the woods and can look back on a hard time with the solace of knowing they're stronger now. Nevertheless, I've worked with clients on talk shows (e.g., The Doctors) where cameras documented their issues (e.g., problems with road rage) as well as my interventions to help them. In some ways, that's not so different from reality TV therapy, right?Which brings us to L.A. Shrinks, the new show on BRAVO. The show, instead of focusing exclusively on the lives of the clients, also focuses on three therapists and - wait for it - their private lives! The show gives the audience a backstage pass into the personal lives of the therapists, and includes footage of emotional and dramatic moments for each of the therapists. Quite honestly, this show takes psychotherapists on television to another level. Incidentally, casting people for the show contacted me a while ago and asked me if I would be interested in trying out for the show. I said "no" because the idea of the show confused me: Would it bring the usual magic of reality TV, replete with crafted editing that makes the therapists look nuts? Would my clients end up feeling exploited? I felt instantly protective of the profession of psychology and psychotherapy, as well as the clients who seek it out.The truth is that good therapy is one of the most wonderful and life-changing experiences a person can have, and I hate to think that therapy will ultimately seem like a dog-and-pony show that's full of emotional fireworks or, God forbid, turning over tables, which occurred on a Real Housewives of New Jersey episode on the same network. Simply put, the show worries me for fear of the reputation of psychotherapy. I can see both positives and negatives to showing excerpts of therapy sessions, provided that the client and therapist and doing it for the right reasons: plain and simple, to help themselves and show the viewing audience that they can get good help, too. So, what about showing the private lives of therapists? With that, too, I can see the positives and negatives.Because there is a power differential between a therapist and a client, the client can sometimes idealize the therapist, despite the fact that the client consciously understands the therapist is a real person, with faults and all like everybody else. Unconsciously, however, the power differential can cause the client to see the therapist as perfectly well balanced, and that's never true. In this way, showing the real-life side of the therapist can be a positive. But we're talking about reality TV here, so we must discuss the possibility that the therapists might end up looking a little unprofessional or, worse, insane in the membrane. (Remember that song from the 90s?)The greatest possible danger in showcasing the lives of therapists is that the focus on the therapist takes the focus away from the client. It's hard to say where the future reputation of psychotherapy is headed given its new incarnations (reality TV, telemedicine, and even online therapy), but talking about it as a professional community is important. After all, we need to practice what we preach to our clients: It's all about insight and understanding the motivations.Q. According to the author, a positive of showing therapy on television is:a)It allows people to understand therapists are human too.b)It allows people a chance to realize that they can get help too, if they need it.c)It breaks the taboo against therapy.d)It makes the subject of psychotherapy accessible.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.Let's be honest: The change has been coming for a while. Reality television has inserted itself into the field of psychology as countless shows over the years have begun to use psychotherapists as a part of their cast. Therapy has long been a subject of at least mild intrigue because what is said to the therapist behind closed doors - well, one never really knows unless you're either the client or the therapist. For the most part, the psychotherapy room has historically acted as a sacred chamber, the rare place where the client feels safe and listened to, and the therapist acts as the supportive mirror, guide, and confidant.The first reality show I ever saw which a therapist, Breaking Bonaduce (2005), had focused on the life of former TV star Danny Bonaduce. I remember thinking at the time how unusual it was that a therapist was actually having a session with clients - drumroll...and cameras! - in the same room. Back then, I didn't think too much of it, probably dismissing psychotherapy on TV as a passing fad. (It is worth mentioning, however, that the therapy I saw conducted on the show was actually pretty good.) Over the years, we have seen more therapists in reality television and audiences have sat through excerpts of more therapy sessions than I can - or want to - count. As the medium of TV therapy has become more common - heck, even expected on your average reality show - it's caused me to reflect on 1) what possesses the clients to be interested in venting their problems in such a public way, and 2) what possesses the therapists to want to show the therapy with their clients on TV. When it comes to the clients' motivations, I have heard many people say, "Oh, they just want attention." First, I'm not sure it's that simple.I give psychotherapy clients an awful lot of credit for having the strength and courage to work on their issues, and I see it as my job as a therapist to protect them and their (often potentially) vulnerable feelings. Even if a client of mine said he wanted to appear on television in a therapy session, I'd have to really think about whether it would be good for him or her. Perhaps for some it would be okay, while it would be problematic for others? My sense, although no one can say for sure, is that it is probably ideal for a client to discuss their issues with the world later, once they're out of the woods and can look back on a hard time with the solace of knowing they're stronger now. Nevertheless, I've worked with clients on talk shows (e.g., The Doctors) where cameras documented their issues (e.g., problems with road rage) as well as my interventions to help them. In some ways, that's not so different from reality TV therapy, right?Which brings us to L.A. Shrinks, the new show on BRAVO. The show, instead of focusing exclusively on the lives of the clients, also focuses on three therapists and - wait for it - their private lives! The show gives the audience a backstage pass into the personal lives of the therapists, and includes footage of emotional and dramatic moments for each of the therapists. Quite honestly, this show takes psychotherapists on television to another level. Incidentally, casting people for the show contacted me a while ago and asked me if I would be interested in trying out for the show. I said "no" because the idea of the show confused me: Would it bring the usual magic of reality TV, replete with crafted editing that makes the therapists look nuts? Would my clients end up feeling exploited? I felt instantly protective of the profession of psychology and psychotherapy, as well as the clients who seek it out.The truth is that good therapy is one of the most wonderful and life-changing experiences a person can have, and I hate to think that therapy will ultimately seem like a dog-and-pony show that's full of emotional fireworks or, God forbid, turning over tables, which occurred on a Real Housewives of New Jersey episode on the same network. Simply put, the show worries me for fear of the reputation of psychotherapy. I can see both positives and negatives to showing excerpts of therapy sessions, provided that the client and therapist and doing it for the right reasons: plain and simple, to help themselves and show the viewing audience that they can get good help, too. So, what about showing the private lives of therapists? With that, too, I can see the positives and negatives.Because there is a power differential between a therapist and a client, the client can sometimes idealize the therapist, despite the fact that the client consciously understands the therapist is a real person, with faults and all like everybody else. Unconsciously, however, the power differential can cause the client to see the therapist as perfectly well balanced, and that's never true. In this way, showing the real-life side of the therapist can be a positive. But we're talking about reality TV here, so we must discuss the possibility that the therapists might end up looking a little unprofessional or, worse, insane in the membrane. (Remember that song from the 90s?)The greatest possible danger in showcasing the lives of therapists is that the focus on the therapist takes the focus away from the client. It's hard to say where the future reputation of psychotherapy is headed given its new incarnations (reality TV, telemedicine, and even online therapy), but talking about it as a professional community is important. After all, we need to practice what we preach to our clients: It's all about insight and understanding the motivations.Q. According to the author, a positive of showing therapy on television is:a)It allows people to understand therapists are human too.b)It allows people a chance to realize that they can get help too, if they need it.c)It breaks the taboo against therapy.d)It makes the subject of psychotherapy accessible.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.Let's be honest: The change has been coming for a while. Reality television has inserted itself into the field of psychology as countless shows over the years have begun to use psychotherapists as a part of their cast. Therapy has long been a subject of at least mild intrigue because what is said to the therapist behind closed doors - well, one never really knows unless you're either the client or the therapist. For the most part, the psychotherapy room has historically acted as a sacred chamber, the rare place where the client feels safe and listened to, and the therapist acts as the supportive mirror, guide, and confidant.The first reality show I ever saw which a therapist, Breaking Bonaduce (2005), had focused on the life of former TV star Danny Bonaduce. I remember thinking at the time how unusual it was that a therapist was actually having a session with clients - drumroll...and cameras! - in the same room. Back then, I didn't think too much of it, probably dismissing psychotherapy on TV as a passing fad. (It is worth mentioning, however, that the therapy I saw conducted on the show was actually pretty good.) Over the years, we have seen more therapists in reality television and audiences have sat through excerpts of more therapy sessions than I can - or want to - count. As the medium of TV therapy has become more common - heck, even expected on your average reality show - it's caused me to reflect on 1) what possesses the clients to be interested in venting their problems in such a public way, and 2) what possesses the therapists to want to show the therapy with their clients on TV. When it comes to the clients' motivations, I have heard many people say, "Oh, they just want attention." First, I'm not sure it's that simple.I give psychotherapy clients an awful lot of credit for having the strength and courage to work on their issues, and I see it as my job as a therapist to protect them and their (often potentially) vulnerable feelings. Even if a client of mine said he wanted to appear on television in a therapy session, I'd have to really think about whether it would be good for him or her. Perhaps for some it would be okay, while it would be problematic for others? My sense, although no one can say for sure, is that it is probably ideal for a client to discuss their issues with the world later, once they're out of the woods and can look back on a hard time with the solace of knowing they're stronger now. Nevertheless, I've worked with clients on talk shows (e.g., The Doctors) where cameras documented their issues (e.g., problems with road rage) as well as my interventions to help them. In some ways, that's not so different from reality TV therapy, right?Which brings us to L.A. Shrinks, the new show on BRAVO. The show, instead of focusing exclusively on the lives of the clients, also focuses on three therapists and - wait for it - their private lives! The show gives the audience a backstage pass into the personal lives of the therapists, and includes footage of emotional and dramatic moments for each of the therapists. Quite honestly, this show takes psychotherapists on television to another level. Incidentally, casting people for the show contacted me a while ago and asked me if I would be interested in trying out for the show. I said "no" because the idea of the show confused me: Would it bring the usual magic of reality TV, replete with crafted editing that makes the therapists look nuts? Would my clients end up feeling exploited? I felt instantly protective of the profession of psychology and psychotherapy, as well as the clients who seek it out.The truth is that good therapy is one of the most wonderful and life-changing experiences a person can have, and I hate to think that therapy will ultimately seem like a dog-and-pony show that's full of emotional fireworks or, God forbid, turning over tables, which occurred on a Real Housewives of New Jersey episode on the same network. Simply put, the show worries me for fear of the reputation of psychotherapy. I can see both positives and negatives to showing excerpts of therapy sessions, provided that the client and therapist and doing it for the right reasons: plain and simple, to help themselves and show the viewing audience that they can get good help, too. So, what about showing the private lives of therapists? With that, too, I can see the positives and negatives.Because there is a power differential between a therapist and a client, the client can sometimes idealize the therapist, despite the fact that the client consciously understands the therapist is a real person, with faults and all like everybody else. Unconsciously, however, the power differential can cause the client to see the therapist as perfectly well balanced, and that's never true. In this way, showing the real-life side of the therapist can be a positive. But we're talking about reality TV here, so we must discuss the possibility that the therapists might end up looking a little unprofessional or, worse, insane in the membrane. (Remember that song from the 90s?)The greatest possible danger in showcasing the lives of therapists is that the focus on the therapist takes the focus away from the client. It's hard to say where the future reputation of psychotherapy is headed given its new incarnations (reality TV, telemedicine, and even online therapy), but talking about it as a professional community is important. After all, we need to practice what we preach to our clients: It's all about insight and understanding the motivations.Q. According to the author, a positive of showing therapy on television is:a)It allows people to understand therapists are human too.b)It allows people a chance to realize that they can get help too, if they need it.c)It breaks the taboo against therapy.d)It makes the subject of psychotherapy accessible.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.Let's be honest: The change has been coming for a while. Reality television has inserted itself into the field of psychology as countless shows over the years have begun to use psychotherapists as a part of their cast. Therapy has long been a subject of at least mild intrigue because what is said to the therapist behind closed doors - well, one never really knows unless you're either the client or the therapist. For the most part, the psychotherapy room has historically acted as a sacred chamber, the rare place where the client feels safe and listened to, and the therapist acts as the supportive mirror, guide, and confidant.The first reality show I ever saw which a therapist, Breaking Bonaduce (2005), had focused on the life of former TV star Danny Bonaduce. I remember thinking at the time how unusual it was that a therapist was actually having a session with clients - drumroll...and cameras! - in the same room. Back then, I didn't think too much of it, probably dismissing psychotherapy on TV as a passing fad. (It is worth mentioning, however, that the therapy I saw conducted on the show was actually pretty good.) Over the years, we have seen more therapists in reality television and audiences have sat through excerpts of more therapy sessions than I can - or want to - count. As the medium of TV therapy has become more common - heck, even expected on your average reality show - it's caused me to reflect on 1) what possesses the clients to be interested in venting their problems in such a public way, and 2) what possesses the therapists to want to show the therapy with their clients on TV. When it comes to the clients' motivations, I have heard many people say, "Oh, they just want attention." First, I'm not sure it's that simple.I give psychotherapy clients an awful lot of credit for having the strength and courage to work on their issues, and I see it as my job as a therapist to protect them and their (often potentially) vulnerable feelings. Even if a client of mine said he wanted to appear on television in a therapy session, I'd have to really think about whether it would be good for him or her. Perhaps for some it would be okay, while it would be problematic for others? My sense, although no one can say for sure, is that it is probably ideal for a client to discuss their issues with the world later, once they're out of the woods and can look back on a hard time with the solace of knowing they're stronger now. Nevertheless, I've worked with clients on talk shows (e.g., The Doctors) where cameras documented their issues (e.g., problems with road rage) as well as my interventions to help them. In some ways, that's not so different from reality TV therapy, right?Which brings us to L.A. Shrinks, the new show on BRAVO. The show, instead of focusing exclusively on the lives of the clients, also focuses on three therapists and - wait for it - their private lives! The show gives the audience a backstage pass into the personal lives of the therapists, and includes footage of emotional and dramatic moments for each of the therapists. Quite honestly, this show takes psychotherapists on television to another level. Incidentally, casting people for the show contacted me a while ago and asked me if I would be interested in trying out for the show. I said "no" because the idea of the show confused me: Would it bring the usual magic of reality TV, replete with crafted editing that makes the therapists look nuts? Would my clients end up feeling exploited? I felt instantly protective of the profession of psychology and psychotherapy, as well as the clients who seek it out.The truth is that good therapy is one of the most wonderful and life-changing experiences a person can have, and I hate to think that therapy will ultimately seem like a dog-and-pony show that's full of emotional fireworks or, God forbid, turning over tables, which occurred on a Real Housewives of New Jersey episode on the same network. Simply put, the show worries me for fear of the reputation of psychotherapy. I can see both positives and negatives to showing excerpts of therapy sessions, provided that the client and therapist and doing it for the right reasons: plain and simple, to help themselves and show the viewing audience that they can get good help, too. So, what about showing the private lives of therapists? With that, too, I can see the positives and negatives.Because there is a power differential between a therapist and a client, the client can sometimes idealize the therapist, despite the fact that the client consciously understands the therapist is a real person, with faults and all like everybody else. Unconsciously, however, the power differential can cause the client to see the therapist as perfectly well balanced, and that's never true. In this way, showing the real-life side of the therapist can be a positive. But we're talking about reality TV here, so we must discuss the possibility that the therapists might end up looking a little unprofessional or, worse, insane in the membrane. (Remember that song from the 90s?)The greatest possible danger in showcasing the lives of therapists is that the focus on the therapist takes the focus away from the client. It's hard to say where the future reputation of psychotherapy is headed given its new incarnations (reality TV, telemedicine, and even online therapy), but talking about it as a professional community is important. After all, we need to practice what we preach to our clients: It's all about insight and understanding the motivations.Q. According to the author, a positive of showing therapy on television is:a)It allows people to understand therapists are human too.b)It allows people a chance to realize that they can get help too, if they need it.c)It breaks the taboo against therapy.d)It makes the subject of psychotherapy accessible.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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