Reading Comprehension

Which of the following is not a part of creative listening?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question.

To listen properly is a hard job, and probably one of the toughest skills in the art of communication. Good listening has nothing to do with proper functioning of one’s auditory organs, which is assumed to be inevitable. Good listening in the sense we are interested in, is not a biological factor, but a psychological one. Your auditory organs may be in perfect order when actually you cannot use them creatively. Creative listening implies your being efficient in the art of concentration. In other words, you concentrate on what one is saying so as to make sure that you hear all that is said. At the same time, you are concentrating on hearing all that is being said you are also thinking fast, digesting what is being said allowing your mental faculties and your memory to accept what you understand and to reject what is not. Sorting out what you do not understand and storing them somewhere in your brain for future discussion. At the same time rationalising what you hear; accepting that which you find rational and rejecting that which you do not find rational.
After you have listened creatively to what you have been told, you can respond if the need arises. It is quite obvious that you respond, because the process of response enhances the art of communication. But your response ought to be only a necessary response, a response that will improve your understanding. This response should involve your mentioning some of those things you have been told but which you do not understand, or politely questioning the rationality of some of the speaker’s must enhance the communicative worth. It should not be an unnecessary argument, or an opportunity for you to express dissatisfaction or disaffection. The ability to listen properly aids communication and understanding.

Proper functioning of one's auditory organs

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question.

To listen properly is a hard job, and probably one of the toughest skills in the art of communication. Good listening has nothing to do with proper functioning of one’s auditory organs, which is assumed to be inevitable. Good listening in the sense we are interested in, is not a biological factor, but a psychological one. Your auditory organs may be in perfect order when actually you cannot use them creatively. Creative listening implies your being efficient in the art of concentration. In other words, you concentrate on what one is saying so as to make sure that you hear all that is said. At the same time, you are concentrating on hearing all that is being said you are also thinking fast, digesting what is being said allowing your mental faculties and your memory to accept what you understand and to reject what is not. Sorting out what you do not understand and storing them somewhere in your brain for future discussion. At the same time rationalising what you hear; accepting that which you find rational and rejecting that which you do not find rational.
After you have listened creatively to what you have been told, you can respond if the need arises. It is quite obvious that you respond, because the process of response enhances the art of communication. But your response ought to be only a necessary response, a response that will improve your understanding. This response should involve your mentioning some of those things you have been told but which you do not understand, or politely questioning the rationality of some of the speaker’s must enhance the communicative worth. It should not be an unnecessary argument, or an opportunity for you to express dissatisfaction or disaffection. The ability to listen properly aids communication and understanding.

Which of the following is not true about post listening response?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question.

To listen properly is a hard job, and probably one of the toughest skills in the art of communication. Good listening has nothing to do with proper functioning of one’s auditory organs, which is assumed to be inevitable. Good listening in the sense we are interested in, is not a biological factor, but a psychological one. Your auditory organs may be in perfect order when actually you cannot use them creatively. Creative listening implies your being efficient in the art of concentration. In other words, you concentrate on what one is saying so as to make sure that you hear all that is said. At the same time, you are concentrating on hearing all that is being said you are also thinking fast, digesting what is being said allowing your mental faculties and your memory to accept what you understand and to reject what is not. Sorting out what you do not understand and storing them somewhere in your brain for future discussion. At the same time rationalising what you hear; accepting that which you find rational and rejecting that which you do not find rational.
After you have listened creatively to what you have been told, you can respond if the need arises. It is quite obvious that you respond, because the process of response enhances the art of communication. But your response ought to be only a necessary response, a response that will improve your understanding. This response should involve your mentioning some of those things you have been told but which you do not understand, or politely questioning the rationality of some of the speaker’s must enhance the communicative worth. It should not be an unnecessary argument, or an opportunity for you to express dissatisfaction or disaffection. The ability to listen properly aids communication and understanding.

Which of the following are used to rationalise what we hear?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question.

To listen properly is a hard job, and probably one of the toughest skills in the art of communication. Good listening has nothing to do with proper functioning of one’s auditory organs, which is assumed to be inevitable. Good listening in the sense we are interested in, is not a biological factor, but a psychological one. Your auditory organs may be in perfect order when actually you cannot use them creatively. Creative listening implies your being efficient in the art of concentration. In other words, you concentrate on what one is saying so as to make sure that you hear all that is said. At the same time, you are concentrating on hearing all that is being said you are also thinking fast, digesting what is being said allowing your mental faculties and your memory to accept what you understand and to reject what is not. Sorting out what you do not understand and storing them somewhere in your brain for future discussion. At the same time rationalising what you hear; accepting that which you find rational and rejecting that which you do not find rational.
After you have listened creatively to what you have been told, you can respond if the need arises. It is quite obvious that you respond, because the process of response enhances the art of communication. But your response ought to be only a necessary response, a response that will improve your understanding. This response should involve your mentioning some of those things you have been told but which you do not understand, or politely questioning the rationality of some of the speaker’s must enhance the communicative worth. It should not be an unnecessary argument, or an opportunity for you to express dissatisfaction or disaffection. The ability to listen properly aids communication and understanding.

The primary focus of the passage is on which of the following?

Directions: This question is based on the following reading passage. Choose the best answer to the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Unlike the United States with its generalissimo politicians - Washington, Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower- the ‘martial arts’ have been conspicuously absent from Canadian politics. The exception to the rule is former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who became the first Canadian leader to bring a gunslinger ethos to Canadian politics. Trudeau introduced Canada to the refined art of single combat; it was the politics of “doing it my way”. Single-combat confrontation implied much more than the renegade in power did, and far less than the tricks of William Lyon Mackenzie King, prime minister intermittently between 1921 and 1948.
Trudeau’s unique background prepared him for the role of authoritarian leader he would assume later in life. Born on October 18, 1919, Trudeau lived in French-speaking Montreal, but heard English at home from his mother, making it easy for the young politician to appeal to all sectors of Canada, a bilingual country. As a young man, he walked and cycled through Europe, finding himself on occasion on the wrong side of the bars in foreign jails. By 1940, Trudeau entered the law faculty at the University of Montreal. As a student he enlisted in the Canadian Officers Training Corps, where he was given a commission as a lieutenant, a rank he held until his retirement in 1947. Trudeau, a renowned sportsman, held a brown belt in karate, knew how to skin dive and could descend 150 feet off a cliff with ease. He continued performing flamboyant physical feats even in later life as Canada’s fifteenth prime minister, astounding Canadians with his prowess. The public’s adoration made it possible for him to practice his personal brand of ‘do it my way’ politics, initiating profound and long-lasting changes to his country.
Other leaders would never have undertaken to deal with such taboo issues as divorce, abortion and homosexuality– matters likely to infuriate conservative Canada from coast to coast. Even the powerful Mackenzie King dared not touch any of the three, though Trudeau tackled them together in an omnibus bill as Minister of Justice under Lester B. Pearson. His reason for loosening legislation on these issues was, as he put poetically put it, "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." The myths-makers have it that this was Trudeau's first deliberate ‘gun slinging’ move, performed with the ultimate goal of attaining national leadership. Contrary to popular belief, Trudeau had no leadership aspirations at the time; all he had was a passion for combat that eclipsed other religious considerations. Trudeau instigated far-reaching changes in legislation governing divorce, abortion and homosexuality that have had a major impact on Canada, shaping the country into what it is today.

The quotation The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, is most probably used to

Directions: This question is based on the following reading passage. Choose the best answer to the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Unlike the United States with its generalissimo politicians - Washington, Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower- the ‘martial arts’ have been conspicuously absent from Canadian politics. The exception to the rule is former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who became the first Canadian leader to bring a gunslinger ethos to Canadian politics. Trudeau introduced Canada to the refined art of single combat; it was the politics of “doing it my way”. Single-combat confrontation implied much more than the renegade in power did, and far less than the tricks of William Lyon Mackenzie King, prime minister intermittently between 1921 and 1948.
Trudeau’s unique background prepared him for the role of authoritarian leader he would assume later in life. Born on October 18, 1919, Trudeau lived in French-speaking Montreal, but heard English at home from his mother, making it easy for the young politician to appeal to all sectors of Canada, a bilingual country. As a young man, he walked and cycled through Europe, finding himself on occasion on the wrong side of the bars in foreign jails. By 1940, Trudeau entered the law faculty at the University of Montreal. As a student he enlisted in the Canadian Officers Training Corps, where he was given a commission as a lieutenant, a rank he held until his retirement in 1947. Trudeau, a renowned sportsman, held a brown belt in karate, knew how to skin dive and could descend 150 feet off a cliff with ease. He continued performing flamboyant physical feats even in later life as Canada’s fifteenth prime minister, astounding Canadians with his prowess. The public’s adoration made it possible for him to practice his personal brand of ‘do it my way’ politics, initiating profound and long-lasting changes to his country.
Other leaders would never have undertaken to deal with such taboo issues as divorce, abortion and homosexuality– matters likely to infuriate conservative Canada from coast to coast. Even the powerful Mackenzie King dared not touch any of the three, though Trudeau tackled them together in an omnibus bill as Minister of Justice under Lester B. Pearson. His reason for loosening legislation on these issues was, as he put poetically put it, "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." The myths-makers have it that this was Trudeau's first deliberate ‘gun slinging’ move, performed with the ultimate goal of attaining national leadership. Contrary to popular belief, Trudeau had no leadership aspirations at the time; all he had was a passion for combat that eclipsed other religious considerations. Trudeau instigated far-reaching changes in legislation governing divorce, abortion and homosexuality that have had a major impact on Canada, shaping the country into what it is today.

The passage supports which of the following statements about government regulation of the Internet?

Directions: This question is based on the following reading passage. Choose the best answer to the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

With the proliferation of electronic technologies in the latter part of the twentieth century, many aspects of cultural practice have been redefined. The eradication of physical boundaries that limit discourse and information access has had profound effects upon the manner in which we conduct democracy. Yet, opinions strongly differ over whether or not the growth of electronic networks will result in expanded democracy. On one side of the debate are anti-utopians who fear that with the intrusion of the Internet into many facets of life, personal freedom will be impeded and the existing rift between the "haves" and "have-nots" in society will grow. On the other side, many 'cyber-utopians' believe that new technologies can eliminate the democracy of elected representatives with which so many people are dissatisfied. The Internet, they say, will allow for a true participatory democracy in which citizens can govern themselves without the interference of bureaucrats and legislators.
Neither of these theories by themselves can fully address the role of democracy in the age of information. As debates about censorship and encryption have shown, government regulation of the Internet can result in violations of the basic rights of speech set forth in the constitution of the United States. Yet, groups that preach ‘Big
Brother’ theories of paranoia tend to neglect the fact that new technologies can help balance the injustices of traditional power found in a centralized government. At the same time, the likelihood of doing away with the present system of democracy in favor of complete and pure self-governance seems impossible, and likely undesirable.
Both arguments about the future of the way in which discourse will occur highlight the inherent relationship between communication and democracy. Perhaps a more useful model for the study of this dynamic can be found in the model of the public sphere proposed by Jorgen Habermas. In this realm, free and diverse equals come together to deliberate and discuss pertinent issues without the impediment of external coercion. The ensuing dialogue transpires in a profoundly democratic forum. The dispensing of traditional hierarchies that occurs on the Internet appears to make possible the type of categories necessary for Habermas ‘ideal speech situation to occur.
However, postmodern critics indicate that the autonomous individual no longer exists in a world where our identities are constructed as much for us as by us. And indeed, much of the postmodern notion of self seems to fit closely with reconfigurations of the subject brought on by electronic technologies. The question that arises then is, how might the reconfiguration of communication enabled by the Internet work to create a new form of 'cyber-democracy’ that better represents citizens' interests?

According to the passage, which of the following is considered by postmodern critics to be a threat to the notion of self?

Directions: This question is based on the following reading passage. Choose the best answer to the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

With the proliferation of electronic technologies in the latter part of the twentieth century, many aspects of cultural practice have been redefined. The eradication of physical boundaries that limit discourse and information access has had profound effects upon the manner in which we conduct democracy. Yet, opinions strongly differ over whether or not the growth of electronic networks will result in expanded democracy. On one side of the debate are anti-utopians who fear that with the intrusion of the Internet into many facets of life, personal freedom will be impeded and the existing rift between the "haves" and "have-nots" in society will grow. On the other side, many 'cyber-utopians' believe that new technologies can eliminate the democracy of elected representatives with which so many people are dissatisfied. The Internet, they say, will allow for a true participatory democracy in which citizens can govern themselves without the interference of bureaucrats and legislators.
Neither of these theories by themselves can fully address the role of democracy in the age of information. As debates about censorship and encryption have shown, government regulation of the Internet can result in violations of the basic rights of speech set forth in the constitution of the United States. Yet, groups that preach ‘Big
Brother’ theories of paranoia tend to neglect the fact that new technologies can help balance the injustices of traditional power found in a centralized government. At the same time, the likelihood of doing away with the present system of democracy in favor of complete and pure self-governance seems impossible, and likely undesirable.
Both arguments about the future of the way in which discourse will occur highlight the inherent relationship between communication and democracy. Perhaps a more useful model for the study of this dynamic can be found in the model of the public sphere proposed by Jorgen Habermas. In this realm, free and diverse equals come together to deliberate and discuss pertinent issues without the impediment of external coercion. The ensuing dialogue transpires in a profoundly democratic forum. The dispensing of traditional hierarchies that occurs on the Internet appears to make possible the type of categories necessary for Habermas ‘ideal speech situation to occur.
However, postmodern critics indicate that the autonomous individual no longer exists in a world where our identities are constructed as much for us as by us. And indeed, much of the postmodern notion of self seems to fit closely with reconfigurations of the subject brought on by electronic technologies. The question that arises then is, how might the reconfiguration of communication enabled by the Internet work to create a new form of 'cyber-democracy’ that better represents citizens' interests?

According to Simpson and Armstrong, virtual communities

Directions: This question is based on the following reading passage. Choose the best answer to the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

On May 5th, 1997, the European edition of Business Tech Magazine led with Hoffman’s cover story "Internet Communities: How They're Shaping Electronic Commerce". This cover story highlights the extent to which the term virtual community has become almost synonymous with various forms of group-CMCs (computer mediated communication), including email-list forums, chat-systems such as IRC, web-based discussion areas and UseNet news-groups. There was no debate in the Business Tech Magazine article as to whether the group-CMC discussions are really 'communities', rather how community as opposed to content can be used to encourage people to return to a particular part of cyberspace for commercial gain. In a similar vein, Simpson and Armstrong in "Internet Gain" argue that ignoring virtual communities would be a great loss of a marketing tool for businesses. They define virtual communities as computer mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member-generated content.
Not all virtual community commentators agree with the Spartan position taken by Hoffman. Rheingold, one of the prime popularizers of the term virtual community, provides us with a more emotive definition in his book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. According to Rheingold, "virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace". Rheingold's definition is extremely popular and has been quoted in many discussions about virtual communities. As discussed below, for social scientists, particularly sociologists, Rheingold's definition raises many issues, especially concerning the notion of community. This is because Rheingold argues via a variety of analogies from the real world such as homesteading that virtual communities are indeed new forms of "community". In fact, Rheingold implies that virtual communities are actually "a kind of ultimate flowering of community". Moreover, Rheingold maintains that whenever computer mediated communications technology becomes available, people inevitably create communities with it. Rheingold can thus be labeled as a technological determinist as he holds that there is a predictable relationship between technology and people's behavior.
The debate over the validity of Rheingold's position has raised doubts about the existence of virtual communities and the appropriate use of the term. Weinreich claims that the idea of virtual communities must be wrong because community is a collective of kinship networks that share a common geographic region, a common history, and a shared value system, usually rooted in a common religion. In other words, Weinreich rejects the existence of virtual communities because group-CMC discussions cannot possibly meet his definition. In Weinreich's view, anyone with even a basic knowledge of sociology understands that information exchange in no way constitutes a community.

The author of the passage mentions Trudeau's accomplishments in sports primarily in order to

Directions: This question is based on the following reading passage. Choose the best answer to the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Unlike the United States with its generalissimo politicians - Washington, Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower- the ‘martial arts’ have been conspicuously absent from Canadian politics. The exception to the rule is former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who became the first Canadian leader to bring a gunslinger ethos to Canadian politics. Trudeau introduced Canada to the refined art of single combat; it was the politics of “doing it my way”. Single-combat confrontation implied much more than the renegade in power did, and far less than the tricks of William Lyon Mackenzie King, prime minister intermittently between 1921 and 1948.
Trudeau’s unique background prepared him for the role of authoritarian leader he would assume later in life. Born on October 18, 1919, Trudeau lived in French-speaking Montreal, but heard English at home from his mother, making it easy for the young politician to appeal to all sectors of Canada, a bilingual country. As a young man, he walked and cycled through Europe, finding himself on occasion on the wrong side of the bars in foreign jails. By 1940, Trudeau entered the law faculty at the University of Montreal. As a student he enlisted in the Canadian Officers Training Corps, where he was given a commission as a lieutenant, a rank he held until his retirement in 1947. Trudeau, a renowned sportsman, held a brown belt in karate, knew how to skin dive and could descend 150 feet off a cliff with ease. He continued performing flamboyant physical feats even in later life as Canada’s fifteenth prime minister, astounding Canadians with his prowess. The public’s adoration made it possible for him to practice his personal brand of ‘do it my way’ politics, initiating profound and long-lasting changes to his country.
Other leaders would never have undertaken to deal with such taboo issues as divorce, abortion and homosexuality– matters likely to infuriate conservative Canada from coast to coast. Even the powerful Mackenzie King dared not touch any of the three, though Trudeau tackled them together in an omnibus bill as Minister of Justice under Lester B. Pearson. His reason for loosening legislation on these issues was, as he put poetically put it, "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." The myths-makers have it that this was Trudeau's first deliberate ‘gun slinging’ move, performed with the ultimate goal of attaining national leadership. Contrary to popular belief, Trudeau had no leadership aspirations at the time; all he had was a passion for combat that eclipsed other religious considerations. Trudeau instigated far-reaching changes in legislation governing divorce, abortion and homosexuality that have had a major impact on Canada, shaping the country into what it is today.

According to the passage, the 'cyber-utopians' mentioned in the passage would most likely be in favor of which of the following innovations?

Directions: This question is based on the following reading passage. Choose the best answer to the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

With the proliferation of electronic technologies in the latter part of the twentieth century, many aspects of cultural practice have been redefined. The eradication of physical boundaries that limit discourse and information access has had profound effects upon the manner in which we conduct democracy. Yet, opinions strongly differ over whether or not the growth of electronic networks will result in expanded democracy. On one side of the debate are anti-utopians who fear that with the intrusion of the Internet into many facets of life, personal freedom will be impeded and the existing rift between the "haves" and "have-nots" in society will grow. On the other side, many 'cyber-utopians' believe that new technologies can eliminate the democracy of elected representatives with which so many people are dissatisfied. The Internet, they say, will allow for a true participatory democracy in which citizens can govern themselves without the interference of bureaucrats and legislators.
Neither of these theories by themselves can fully address the role of democracy in the age of information. As debates about censorship and encryption have shown, government regulation of the Internet can result in violations of the basic rights of speech set forth in the constitution of the United States. Yet, groups that preach ‘Big
Brother’ theories of paranoia tend to neglect the fact that new technologies can help balance the injustices of traditional power found in a centralized government. At the same time, the likelihood of doing away with the present system of democracy in favor of complete and pure self-governance seems impossible, and likely undesirable.
Both arguments about the future of the way in which discourse will occur highlight the inherent relationship between communication and democracy. Perhaps a more useful model for the study of this dynamic can be found in the model of the public sphere proposed by Jorgen Habermas. In this realm, free and diverse equals come together to deliberate and discuss pertinent issues without the impediment of external coercion. The ensuing dialogue transpires in a profoundly democratic forum. The dispensing of traditional hierarchies that occurs on the Internet appears to make possible the type of categories necessary for Habermas ‘ideal speech situation to occur.
However, postmodern critics indicate that the autonomous individual no longer exists in a world where our identities are constructed as much for us as by us. And indeed, much of the postmodern notion of self seems to fit closely with reconfigurations of the subject brought on by electronic technologies. The question that arises then is, how might the reconfiguration of communication enabled by the Internet work to create a new form of 'cyber-democracy’ that better represents citizens' interests?

It can be inferred from the passage that former Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King

Directions: This question is based on the following reading passage. Choose the best answer to the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Unlike the United States with its generalissimo politicians - Washington, Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower- the ‘martial arts’ have been conspicuously absent from Canadian politics. The exception to the rule is former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who became the first Canadian leader to bring a gunslinger ethos to Canadian politics. Trudeau introduced Canada to the refined art of single combat; it was the politics of “doing it my way”. Single-combat confrontation implied much more than the renegade in power did, and far less than the tricks of William Lyon Mackenzie King, prime minister intermittently between 1921 and 1948.
Trudeau’s unique background prepared him for the role of authoritarian leader he would assume later in life. Born on October 18, 1919, Trudeau lived in French-speaking Montreal, but heard English at home from his mother, making it easy for the young politician to appeal to all sectors of Canada, a bilingual country. As a young man, he walked and cycled through Europe, finding himself on occasion on the wrong side of the bars in foreign jails. By 1940, Trudeau entered the law faculty at the University of Montreal. As a student he enlisted in the Canadian Officers Training Corps, where he was given a commission as a lieutenant, a rank he held until his retirement in 1947. Trudeau, a renowned sportsman, held a brown belt in karate, knew how to skin dive and could descend 150 feet off a cliff with ease. He continued performing flamboyant physical feats even in later life as Canada’s fifteenth prime minister, astounding Canadians with his prowess. The public’s adoration made it possible for him to practice his personal brand of ‘do it my way’ politics, initiating profound and long-lasting changes to his country.
Other leaders would never have undertaken to deal with such taboo issues as divorce, abortion and homosexuality– matters likely to infuriate conservative Canada from coast to coast. Even the powerful Mackenzie King dared not touch any of the three, though Trudeau tackled them together in an omnibus bill as Minister of Justice under Lester B. Pearson. His reason for loosening legislation on these issues was, as he put poetically put it, "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." The myths-makers have it that this was Trudeau's first deliberate ‘gun slinging’ move, performed with the ultimate goal of attaining national leadership. Contrary to popular belief, Trudeau had no leadership aspirations at the time; all he had was a passion for combat that eclipsed other religious considerations. Trudeau instigated far-reaching changes in legislation governing divorce, abortion and homosexuality that have had a major impact on Canada, shaping the country into what it is today.

Weinreich rejects Rheingold's inclusion of virtual communities in the definition of communities for all of the following reasons EXCEPT

Directions: This question is based on the following reading passage. Choose the best answer to the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

On May 5th, 1997, the European edition of Business Tech Magazine led with Hoffman’s cover story "Internet Communities: How They're Shaping Electronic Commerce". This cover story highlights the extent to which the term virtual community has become almost synonymous with various forms of group-CMCs (computer mediated communication), including email-list forums, chat-systems such as IRC, web-based discussion areas and UseNet news-groups. There was no debate in the Business Tech Magazine article as to whether the group-CMC discussions are really 'communities', rather how community as opposed to content can be used to encourage people to return to a particular part of cyberspace for commercial gain. In a similar vein, Simpson and Armstrong in "Internet Gain" argue that ignoring virtual communities would be a great loss of a marketing tool for businesses. They define virtual communities as computer mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member-generated content.
Not all virtual community commentators agree with the Spartan position taken by Hoffman. Rheingold, one of the prime popularizers of the term virtual community, provides us with a more emotive definition in his book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. According to Rheingold, "virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace". Rheingold's definition is extremely popular and has been quoted in many discussions about virtual communities. As discussed below, for social scientists, particularly sociologists, Rheingold's definition raises many issues, especially concerning the notion of community. This is because Rheingold argues via a variety of analogies from the real world such as homesteading that virtual communities are indeed new forms of "community". In fact, Rheingold implies that virtual communities are actually "a kind of ultimate flowering of community". Moreover, Rheingold maintains that whenever computer mediated communications technology becomes available, people inevitably create communities with it. Rheingold can thus be labeled as a technological determinist as he holds that there is a predictable relationship between technology and people's behavior.
The debate over the validity of Rheingold's position has raised doubts about the existence of virtual communities and the appropriate use of the term. Weinreich claims that the idea of virtual communities must be wrong because community is a collective of kinship networks that share a common geographic region, a common history, and a shared value system, usually rooted in a common religion. In other words, Weinreich rejects the existence of virtual communities because group-CMC discussions cannot possibly meet his definition. In Weinreich's view, anyone with even a basic knowledge of sociology understands that information exchange in no way constitutes a community.

The primary purpose of the passage is to

Directions: This question is based on the following reading passage. Choose the best answer to the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

On May 5th, 1997, the European edition of Business Tech Magazine led with Hoffman’s cover story "Internet Communities: How They're Shaping Electronic Commerce". This cover story highlights the extent to which the term virtual community has become almost synonymous with various forms of group-CMCs (computer mediated communication), including email-list forums, chat-systems such as IRC, web-based discussion areas and UseNet news-groups. There was no debate in the Business Tech Magazine article as to whether the group-CMC discussions are really 'communities', rather how community as opposed to content can be used to encourage people to return to a particular part of cyberspace for commercial gain. In a similar vein, Simpson and Armstrong in "Internet Gain" argue that ignoring virtual communities would be a great loss of a marketing tool for businesses. They define virtual communities as computer mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member-generated content.
Not all virtual community commentators agree with the Spartan position taken by Hoffman. Rheingold, one of the prime popularizers of the term virtual community, provides us with a more emotive definition in his book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. According to Rheingold, "virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace". Rheingold's definition is extremely popular and has been quoted in many discussions about virtual communities. As discussed below, for social scientists, particularly sociologists, Rheingold's definition raises many issues, especially concerning the notion of community. This is because Rheingold argues via a variety of analogies from the real world such as homesteading that virtual communities are indeed new forms of "community". In fact, Rheingold implies that virtual communities are actually "a kind of ultimate flowering of community". Moreover, Rheingold maintains that whenever computer mediated communications technology becomes available, people inevitably create communities with it. Rheingold can thus be labeled as a technological determinist as he holds that there is a predictable relationship between technology and people's behavior.
The debate over the validity of Rheingold's position has raised doubts about the existence of virtual communities and the appropriate use of the term. Weinreich claims that the idea of virtual communities must be wrong because community is a collective of kinship networks that share a common geographic region, a common history, and a shared value system, usually rooted in a common religion. In other words, Weinreich rejects the existence of virtual communities because group-CMC discussions cannot possibly meet his definition. In Weinreich's view, anyone with even a basic knowledge of sociology understands that information exchange in no way constitutes a community.

The author is primarily concerned with

Directions: This question is based on the following reading passage. Choose the best answer to the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

With the proliferation of electronic technologies in the latter part of the twentieth century, many aspects of cultural practice have been redefined. The eradication of physical boundaries that limit discourse and information access has had profound effects upon the manner in which we conduct democracy. Yet, opinions strongly differ over whether or not the growth of electronic networks will result in expanded democracy. On one side of the debate are anti-utopians who fear that with the intrusion of the Internet into many facets of life, personal freedom will be impeded and the existing rift between the "haves" and "have-nots" in society will grow. On the other side, many 'cyber-utopians' believe that new technologies can eliminate the democracy of elected representatives with which so many people are dissatisfied. The Internet, they say, will allow for a true participatory democracy in which citizens can govern themselves without the interference of bureaucrats and legislators.
Neither of these theories by themselves can fully address the role of democracy in the age of information. As debates about censorship and encryption have shown, government regulation of the Internet can result in violations of the basic rights of speech set forth in the constitution of the United States. Yet, groups that preach ‘Big
Brother’ theories of paranoia tend to neglect the fact that new technologies can help balance the injustices of traditional power found in a centralized government. At the same time, the likelihood of doing away with the present system of democracy in favor of complete and pure self-governance seems impossible, and likely undesirable.
Both arguments about the future of the way in which discourse will occur highlight the inherent relationship between communication and democracy. Perhaps a more useful model for the study of this dynamic can be found in the model of the public sphere proposed by Jorgen Habermas. In this realm, free and diverse equals come together to deliberate and discuss pertinent issues without the impediment of external coercion. The ensuing dialogue transpires in a profoundly democratic forum. The dispensing of traditional hierarchies that occurs on the Internet appears to make possible the type of categories necessary for Habermas ‘ideal speech situation to occur.
However, postmodern critics indicate that the autonomous individual no longer exists in a world where our identities are constructed as much for us as by us. And indeed, much of the postmodern notion of self seems to fit closely with reconfigurations of the subject brought on by electronic technologies. The question that arises then is, how might the reconfiguration of communication enabled by the Internet work to create a new form of 'cyber-democracy’ that better represents citizens' interests?