[ Back Up to “Uriel at LZU” webpage: http://urielw.com/lzu/ ]
Exam Duration: 90 minutes
Instructions
Read the questions carefully. Provide short, direct answers. Use your own words — don’t copy from the text.
The world was new, beneath a blue umbrella sky
1. Why was the world “new”?
Two ways to explain this:
A) The speaker was young (whereas now he’s old), so for him the world was new.
B) Being in love makes everything seem new — one sees everything differently.
The gleam of a thousand lights is often as effective as the persuasive light in a wooing and fascinating eye.
2. Explain “wooing and fascinating eye.” Whose eye is this? What is the owner of the eye doing?
It’s the eye of some man who is wooing an innocent young woman.
3. What 2 things are being compared?
The city, and a man. Both can be “persuasive” for an innocent young woman.
Mr Barnard: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, malodorous, pervert!!!
4. Why is Mr. Barnard saying these things?
Because he works in the abuse clinic, and it is his job to abuse customers. (The customer entered the abuse clinic by mistake, thinking it was the argument clinic.)
Anyway, don’t you know there’s a war on?
5. Writer Paul Krugman poses this rhetorical question in mimicry of right-wing Republicans. What is he specifically criticizing with this question?
He’s criticizing the dishonest technique by which right-wing Republicans silence criticism of the Bush administration. The argument he is mimicking could be expressed more completely as follows:
“Don’t you know there’s a war on? It seems that you don’t know, because you are criticizing the government, and you shouldn’t do that when there’s a war on. When you criticize the government, it makes America less unified and strong, and it helps the enemy. Since there is in fact a war taking place right now, no one should criticize the government.”
Of course, that is a ridiculous argument, and that is the point Krugman is making. It is one of America’s most cherished ideals that citizens should be free to criticize the government.
Mr. Lemongello was the one witness the Republicans who control the House Judiciary Committee allowed to testify against the gun industry immunity bill earlier this month.
6. Whom did Mr. Lemongello want to sue? How did that person break the law?
He wanted to sue Will's Jewelry and Loan (a pawnshop in West Virginia).
It is illegal to sell guns to a felon. It is also illegal to sell guns to someone who is buying them on behalf of a felon. The store broke the law by selling guns to a man buying them on behalf of a felon named James Gray.
7. If the new bill becomes law, would you expect more or fewer problems like those experienced by Mr. Lemongello? Explain.
Mr. Lemongello’s problem was that he was shot. The gun used to shoot him had been illegally purchased.
If the new bill becomes law, it would be harder for victims to sue gun stores for illegal gun sales. So it would be easier for stores to sell guns illegally, and easier for criminals to obtain guns. So one would expect more problems like Mr. Lemongello’s if the new bill becomes law.
8. In light of this article, is it desirable for encyclopedia publishers to sell unrelated products? Explain simply and briefly.
Microsoft’s alteration of its encyclopedia was undesirable because it made the encyclopedia less accurate, informative and truthful.
Microsoft was motivated to alter the article because it sells unrelated products. (It altered the article to promote sales of its Windows software.) An encyclopedia publisher that did not sell unrelated products would not have this incentive to distort the truth.
This suggests it is undesirable for encyclopedia publishers to sell unrelated products.
9. How can the New York Times be compared with Microsoft?
It may be that the New York Times, just like Microsoft, distorted the truth in order to promote profits. The article distorts the truth by underplaying Microsoft’s objectionable actions; the Times’s motives for this would be to promote its own profits by avoiding giving offense to Microsoft. (The Times’s concern could be advertising revenue from Microsoft; there might also be other, less obvious explanations.)
10. What is the threat to democracy illustrated by this article?
The idea of democracy is that the people choose a government that does good things for the people. But if commercial interests (e.g. corporations) can distort the news and manipulate voters’ political opinions, then voters will not be properly informed, and they may elect governments that unfairly favor commercial interests. This could produce government that is harmful for people, since what’s good for commercial interests can be bad for the people.
[ Back Up to “Uriel at LZU” webpage: http://urielw.com/lzu/ ]