RC 99 - Passage 51

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:10 pm
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:2 members

RC 99 - Passage 51

by hja379 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:00 am
I got the question below wrong. Can you please help?

Passage - 51
In the 1930s the Payne Foundation funded studies attributing juvenile
crime to movie violence, complete with testimonials of youthful
offenders that they had gotten larcenous ideas from the silver screen.
Legions of censors from the Hays Office monitored Hollywood output to
make sure that, at the least, crime didn't pay. In the 1950s, Dr.
Frederic Wertham made a name for himself by attributing all manner of
delinquencies to the mayhem depicted in comic books. If today's
censorious forces smell smoke, it is not in the absence of fire.

In recent years, market forces have driven screen violence to an
amazing pitch. As the movies lost much of their audience-especially
adults-to television, the studios learned that the way to make their
killing, so to speak, was to offer on big screens what the networks
would not permit on the small. Thus, decades ago the "•action movie"–-a
euphemism for, among other things, grisly violence-aimed to attract
the teenagers who were the demographic category most eager to flee
the family room.

Aiming to recoup losses and better compete with cable, television
programmers struck back; the networks lowered their censorship
standards and pruned their "•standards and practices"– staffs; the
deregulatory Federal Communications Commission clammed up; and the
local news fell all over itself cramming snippets of gore between
commercials.

There are indeed reasons to attribute violence to the media, but the
links are weaker than recent headlines would have one believe. The
attempt to demonize the media distracts attention from the real causes
of-and the serious remedies for-the epidemic of violence. The
question the liberal crusaders fail to address is not whether these
images are wholesome but just how much real-world violence can be
blamed on the media. Assume, for the sake of argument, that every
copycat crime reported in the media can plausibly be traced to
television and movies. Let us make an exceedingly high estimate that
the resulting carnage results in 100 deaths per year that would
otherwise not have taken place. These would amount to 0.28 percent of
the total of 36,000 murders accidents, and suicides committed by
gunshot in the United States in 1992.

That media violence contributes to a climate in which violence is
legitimate-and there can be no doubt of this-does not make it an
urgent social problem. Violence on the screens, however loathsome,
does not make a significant contribution to violence on the streets.
Images don't spill blood. Rage, equipped with guns, does. Desperation
does. Revenge does. As liberals say, the drug trade does; poverty does;
unemployment does. It seems likely that a given percent increase in
decently paying jobs will save thousands of times more lives than the
same percent decrease in media bang-bang. And once in a while-
meaning far too often-some grotesque images inspire emulation.

3. The broadcast networks have recently proposed a system of rating program
content, similar to those ratings in the film industry. Which of the following
best characterizes the relevance of this statement?


A. The statement acknowledges that the networks have taken little
responsibility in patrolling the content of their programming.
B. The statement implies that those who speak out against media
violence have had significant success in convincing the networks to
enforce stricter content standards.
C. The statement suggests that some convincing evidence supporting a
stronger link between media violence and violent acts has been found.
D. The statement suggests that networks will decrease the amount of
shows that contain violent content.
E. The statement has no relevance to the argument in the passage

OA B
Explanation:
If the broadcast industry is just now proposing a rating system, what could have
been the cause of this? Quite possibly the backlash to the increased violence that
the author discusses. [spoiler](B) [/spoiler]says the same: those who have spoken out against media
violence have made an impact on the networks.
Last edited by hja379 on Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Legendary Member
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:49 am
Thanked: 82 times
Followed by:9 members
GMAT Score:720

by maihuna » Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:49 am
It seems D is a correct option.

Two things related to new facts:
>the studios learned that the way to make their killing, so to speak, was to offer on big screens what the networks
would not permit on the small screen
>networks lowered their censorship standards and pruned their â€"¢standards and practicesâ€- staffs

It seems the network broadcasters have reduced their standards therby allowing more violent things in response to studio's. So if the network broadcaster tries to match the studio's ratings, it is likely some of the programms containing violent stuff will be reduved.

what is OA?
Charged up again to beat the beast :)

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:29 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

by crimson2283 » Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:01 am
IMO B

Legendary Member
Posts: 857
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 1:36 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:15 members

by AIM GMAT » Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:40 am
Its a toughie , hence i vote for E . Spent a lot of time wondering , my head is spinning .

Please kindly post the OA and official explanation .
Thanks & Regards,
AIM GMAT

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:55 am
Location: Hull, UK
Thanked: 1 times

by aspirant_gmat » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:40 am
I think the answer is D.

Since, the studio lowered its censorship standards to recoup losses and better compete with cable, it's safe
to assume that network censorship standards are now lower than that of studio.

"Aiming to recoup losses and better compete with cable, television
programmers struck back; the networks lowered their censorship
standards and pruned their â€"¢standards and practicesâ€- staffs; the
deregulatory Federal Communications Commission clammed up; and the
local news fell all over itself cramming snippets of gore between
commercials. "

So if, according to the question, broadcast networks revises its rating system and makes it similar to that of
film industry(studio) then at least a few, may be the ones with the most violent contents, violent programs will go off the air.

Only answer D supports the above statement, hence the correct answer.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:10 pm
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:2 members

by hja379 » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:17 am
I have posted the OA and the explanation.