BackALL MODULES
CAT 2025 Lesson : Reading Comprehension I - RC Solving Technique 3 – Solved Example
Example 8
Read the passage below and answer the questions:
It was not a surprise to see Trump and [other] Republican politicians seeking to implicate video games in the US’s latest mass shootings. The idea that young men can be driven to kill by [video games] is a seductive one: it’s simple, it ties in with fears that older voters harbour about digital culture and screen time, and it conveniently draws attention away from more complex societal concerns such as poverty, neglect, easy access to deadly firearms and a violently confrontational political culture. There’s just one problem: despite years of research and hundreds of studies, there is no compelling evidence that video game violence causes real-life bloodshed...
Every time these claims are made, the industry seems unwilling to [analyse or engage]. The standard response is blanket outrage and denial – games don’t cause real-world violence, they’re “apolitical” fun, so we don’t have to think about the issue, we don’t have to consider how the shooters portray or utilise military violence. They’re just entertainment.
[However], as the visual detail, authenticity and narrative complexity of war simulations has increased, observers have started to think about the political meaning of these games. For example: should we consider the ramifications of military titles, such as Call of Duty or Battlefield, which have taught a generation of young people the names, manufacturers and magazine capacities of pretty much every submachine gun and assault rifle available? Should it worry us that for a number of years, game makers paid licensing fees to these manufacturers to use their products in games? And can we call military shooters apolitical if they constantly present the US and its allies as the default good guys and every one else as the baddies? ...
[Game developers argue: “We’re just creating this playground to play on.”] This echoes a familiar refrain from the developers of violent games – that they’re creating escapist entertainment. But this isn’t good enough. If your game uses real-world weapons, real-world locations and real-world conflicts, you can’t recuse yourself from moral and political debate. You’re in the thick of it whether you want to be or not, and maybe these moments are opportunities to reflect...
Video games are not responsible for real-world violence – life is far too complicated for that to be true – and video games should be free to explore and portray the same conflicts, weapons, themes and ideals as movies and television. But the industry has to be better at responding to the claims of political fearmongers, especially in the wake of horrific episodes of violence. Game makers need to analyse how they are portraying violence and what they are telling young gamers about military action...
It is not enough to point to the research and yell “video games are blameless” – every time a 14-year-old gains a preference for a cool-looking assault rifle in a shooter game, they’re entering an industrial-military complex of ideas and endorsements that game makers should be teaching them to navigate and contextualise. There is no depiction of conflict in art without politics, and if the games industry refuses to be drawn into discussions around authenticity, appropriation, meaning and culpability in simulated violence, the loudest voices will be opportunist politicians such as Trump... And nothing good will ever come of that.
1) According to the author, which of the following could be a cause of violence and bloodshed in the US in real life?
(1) The propensity of video games to show graphic violence.
(2) Rifle companies paying game developers to showcase their weapons.
(3) The propensity to view the US as good and the enemies as bad.
(4) Easy access to guns and other weapons.
Option (4) mentioned easy access to guns (deadly firearms), and hence, is the correct choice.
All other options are related to video games, and therefore, can be eliminated as we know that video games are not causing violence. Option (2) is also incorrect as it is game developers that are paying rifle companies.
Note that we cannot say for sure that guns, poverty or a confrontational political culture are definitely causing bloodshed – however, the question asks us which could be a cause. Since any of these reasons can potentially be a cause, we can select option (4) as the correct choice.
Answer: (4) Easy access to guns and other weapons.
2) What is the chief defence of game developers?
(1) Game makers point to the lack of proof tying video games and violent incidents.
(2) Video gamers are not violent in real life because they are escaping their issues in the games.
(3) Game makers point out that games have nothing to do with the real world.
(4) Game makers highlight the complex societal concerns and political issues that actually foster violence.
This is mentioned in option (3), which is the correct choice.
Option (1) is incorrect, as the author mentions the lack of proof, not the game developers. Similarly, option (4) is also mentioned by the author as potential causes. Therefore, these two options can be eliminated.
Option (2) is also not the main reason provided, and can be eliminated. This option is taking the word escapist in the 4th paragraph literally.
Thus, option (3) is the correct choice.
Answer: (3) Game makers point out that games have nothing to do with the real world.
3) What is the conclusion of the passage?
(1) Trump will blame video games, even though they are not to blame.
(2) Video game developers must participate in the discussion about their games.
(3) Politicians will continue to blame video game developers as it's the easy way out.
(4) US kids are already tuned to selecting more violent weapons in video games.
Options (1), (2) and (3) all seem like appropriate conclusions, based on the last paragraph. Option (4) is not the main conclusion, and can be eliminated.
Option (2) is more suitable as it is speaking to video game developers, whereas options (1) and (3) are about politicians. All the three options are factual, but the author has been writing this article to explain to video game developers that they should engage, and hence, this is the best option.
Answer: (2) Video game developers must participate in the discussion about their games.
4) How will politicians benefit if game developers recuse themselves from moral and political debate?
(1) Politicians can take the easy way out and avoid solving real problems.
(2) Politicians can avoid discussions about authenticity, meaning and culpability in simulated violence.
(3) Politicians can be opportunistic, especially in discussions involving deaths of citizens.
(4) Politicians will easily gain the support of older voters who dislike digital products.
Based on these points, we can select option (1) as the correct choice.
Option (2) is not correct, as it is video game developers that are avoiding discussions. Hence, this option can be eliminated.
Option (3) is too harsh, politicians are called opportunistic, but the author has not implied that politicians take advantage of deaths. At the most, we can say that they are passing the buck (passing the responsibility) to video game developers instead of taking responsibility.
Option (4) is also incorrect – older voters are mentioned as a group of people who can be convinced to blame video games. The author merely suggests that this group of people will fall for such an argument, not that politicians will use video game fears to get votes. Therefore, we can eliminate this option as well and select option (1) as the correct choice.
Answer: (1) Politicians can take the easy way out and avoid solving real problems.
It was not a surprise to see Trump and [other] Republican politicians seeking to implicate video games in the US’s latest mass shootings. The idea that young men can be driven to kill by [video games] is a seductive one: it’s simple, it ties in with fears that older voters harbour about digital culture and screen time, and it conveniently draws attention away from more complex societal concerns such as poverty, neglect, easy access to deadly firearms and a violently confrontational political culture. There’s just one problem: despite years of research and hundreds of studies, there is no compelling evidence that video game violence causes real-life bloodshed...
Every time these claims are made, the industry seems unwilling to [analyse or engage]. The standard response is blanket outrage and denial – games don’t cause real-world violence, they’re “apolitical” fun, so we don’t have to think about the issue, we don’t have to consider how the shooters portray or utilise military violence. They’re just entertainment.
[However], as the visual detail, authenticity and narrative complexity of war simulations has increased, observers have started to think about the political meaning of these games. For example: should we consider the ramifications of military titles, such as Call of Duty or Battlefield, which have taught a generation of young people the names, manufacturers and magazine capacities of pretty much every submachine gun and assault rifle available? Should it worry us that for a number of years, game makers paid licensing fees to these manufacturers to use their products in games? And can we call military shooters apolitical if they constantly present the US and its allies as the default good guys and every one else as the baddies? ...
[Game developers argue: “We’re just creating this playground to play on.”] This echoes a familiar refrain from the developers of violent games – that they’re creating escapist entertainment. But this isn’t good enough. If your game uses real-world weapons, real-world locations and real-world conflicts, you can’t recuse yourself from moral and political debate. You’re in the thick of it whether you want to be or not, and maybe these moments are opportunities to reflect...
Video games are not responsible for real-world violence – life is far too complicated for that to be true – and video games should be free to explore and portray the same conflicts, weapons, themes and ideals as movies and television. But the industry has to be better at responding to the claims of political fearmongers, especially in the wake of horrific episodes of violence. Game makers need to analyse how they are portraying violence and what they are telling young gamers about military action...
It is not enough to point to the research and yell “video games are blameless” – every time a 14-year-old gains a preference for a cool-looking assault rifle in a shooter game, they’re entering an industrial-military complex of ideas and endorsements that game makers should be teaching them to navigate and contextualise. There is no depiction of conflict in art without politics, and if the games industry refuses to be drawn into discussions around authenticity, appropriation, meaning and culpability in simulated violence, the loudest voices will be opportunist politicians such as Trump... And nothing good will ever come of that.
1) According to the author, which of the following could be a cause of violence and bloodshed in the US in real life?
(1) The propensity of video games to show graphic violence.
(2) Rifle companies paying game developers to showcase their weapons.
(3) The propensity to view the US as good and the enemies as bad.
(4) Easy access to guns and other weapons.
Solution
This question can be answered immediately after reading the first paragraph. We learn that video games are not responsible for violence (there is no compelling evidence that video game violence causes real-life bloodshed). At the same time, the author also speaks about possible issues which could lead to violence (complex societal concerns such as poverty, neglect, easy access to deadly firearms and a violently confrontational political culture).Option (4) mentioned easy access to guns (deadly firearms), and hence, is the correct choice.
All other options are related to video games, and therefore, can be eliminated as we know that video games are not causing violence. Option (2) is also incorrect as it is game developers that are paying rifle companies.
Note that we cannot say for sure that guns, poverty or a confrontational political culture are definitely causing bloodshed – however, the question asks us which could be a cause. Since any of these reasons can potentially be a cause, we can select option (4) as the correct choice.
Answer: (4) Easy access to guns and other weapons.
2) What is the chief defence of game developers?
(1) Game makers point to the lack of proof tying video games and violent incidents.
(2) Video gamers are not violent in real life because they are escaping their issues in the games.
(3) Game makers point out that games have nothing to do with the real world.
(4) Game makers highlight the complex societal concerns and political issues that actually foster violence.
Solution
This is also a Direct Single question, which can be solved after reading the second paragraph. The author tells us that video game developers deny this, stating that games have nothing to do with real-world violence and are just fun.This is mentioned in option (3), which is the correct choice.
Option (1) is incorrect, as the author mentions the lack of proof, not the game developers. Similarly, option (4) is also mentioned by the author as potential causes. Therefore, these two options can be eliminated.
Option (2) is also not the main reason provided, and can be eliminated. This option is taking the word escapist in the 4th paragraph literally.
Thus, option (3) is the correct choice.
Answer: (3) Game makers point out that games have nothing to do with the real world.
3) What is the conclusion of the passage?
(1) Trump will blame video games, even though they are not to blame.
(2) Video game developers must participate in the discussion about their games.
(3) Politicians will continue to blame video game developers as it's the easy way out.
(4) US kids are already tuned to selecting more violent weapons in video games.
Solution
This is an inferential question, and can be answered based on the context and the conclusive paragraph. Let us consider the options.Options (1), (2) and (3) all seem like appropriate conclusions, based on the last paragraph. Option (4) is not the main conclusion, and can be eliminated.
Option (2) is more suitable as it is speaking to video game developers, whereas options (1) and (3) are about politicians. All the three options are factual, but the author has been writing this article to explain to video game developers that they should engage, and hence, this is the best option.
Answer: (2) Video game developers must participate in the discussion about their games.
4) How will politicians benefit if game developers recuse themselves from moral and political debate?
(1) Politicians can take the easy way out and avoid solving real problems.
(2) Politicians can avoid discussions about authenticity, meaning and culpability in simulated violence.
(3) Politicians can be opportunistic, especially in discussions involving deaths of citizens.
(4) Politicians will easily gain the support of older voters who dislike digital products.
Solution
This phrase is mentioned in the fourth paragraph, but the author makes this quite clear multiple times, including the first and last paragraphs. The author explains that opportunistic politicians will win if game developers do not participate in this debate. How they would benefit is quite clear from the first paragraph itself, as we learn that they need not resolve more complex societal concerns.Based on these points, we can select option (1) as the correct choice.
Option (2) is not correct, as it is video game developers that are avoiding discussions. Hence, this option can be eliminated.
Option (3) is too harsh, politicians are called opportunistic, but the author has not implied that politicians take advantage of deaths. At the most, we can say that they are passing the buck (passing the responsibility) to video game developers instead of taking responsibility.
Option (4) is also incorrect – older voters are mentioned as a group of people who can be convinced to blame video games. The author merely suggests that this group of people will fall for such an argument, not that politicians will use video game fears to get votes. Therefore, we can eliminate this option as well and select option (1) as the correct choice.
Answer: (1) Politicians can take the easy way out and avoid solving real problems.
Want to read the full content
Unlock this content & enjoy all the features of the platform
Subscribe Now
