Reading Flashcards

Technology is rapidly expanding the scope of capabilities for both professional and personal use; such is the case with smart phones. Professionals now have devices available to them capable of digital media, internet access, phone communication, multi-person scheduling and office tools for documents and presentations. Businesspeople that are often mobile may maximize the use of these critical features on smart phones. Individuals who simply enjoy the luxury of multi-function devices often use these devices for frivolous pursuits such as downloading catchy ring tones, instant messaging about the latest gossip and looking up the world record for most cans crushed on one’s head during the Superbowl. This fusion of capabilities and increased availability of such devices could be a sign of a growing blend in society between work and personal life, or individuals could simply be taking a luxurious approach to their connectivity in personal lives. The term “frivolous” implies that the author

Answer: believes that the average individual does not need a smart phone.

The author uses the term "frivolous pursuits" to describe how individuals use smartphones for activities like "downloading catchy ring tones, instant messaging about the latest gossip and looking up the world record for most cans crushed on one’s head." By labeling these activities as trivial and unimportant, the author implies that these uses are unnecessary, suggesting that the average individual does not genuinely *need* a smartphone for such non-essential purposes.

Technology is rapidly expanding the scope of capabilities for both professional and personal use; such is the case with smart phones. Professionals now have devices available to them capable of digital media, internet access, phone communication, multi-person scheduling and office tools for documents and presentations. Businesspeople that are often mobile may maximize the use of these critical features on smart phones. Individuals who simply enjoy the luxury of multi-function devices often use these devices for frivolous pursuits such as downloading catchy ring tones, instant messaging about the latest gossip and looking up the world record for most cans crushed on one’s head during the Superbowl. This fusion of capabilities and increased availability of such devices could be a sign of a growing blend in society between work and personal life, or individuals could simply be taking a luxurious approach to their connectivity in personal lives. What is the purpose of the conclusion sentence?

Answer: Present two possible explanations for the growing popularity of smart phones

The conclusion sentence, 'This fusion of capabilities... could be a sign of a growing blend... or individuals could simply be taking a luxurious approach,' explicitly offers two distinct interpretations for the observed trends. It presents these as alternative explanations for why smart phones are becoming so popular and widely used. Therefore, its purpose is to offer these two possible reasons for the phenomenon discussed.

But man is not destined to vanish. He can be killed, but he cannot be destroyed, because his soul is deathless and his spirit is irrepressible. Therefore, though the situation seems dark in the context of the confrontation between the superpowers, the silver lining is provided by amazing phenomenon that the very nations which have spent incalculable resources and energy for the production of deadly weapons are desperately trying to find out how they might never be used. They threaten each other, intimidate each other and go to the brink, but before the total hour arrives they withdraw from the brink. The main point from the author's view is that

Answer: Human society will survive despite the serious threat of total annihilation.

The passage begins by asserting that 'man is not destined to vanish' and that his 'soul is deathless and his spirit is irrepressible.' Despite the threat of deadly weapons and superpower confrontation, the author highlights that these nations are 'desperately trying to find out how they might never be used.' This overall message conveys a strong belief in humanity's resilience and ultimate survival against existential threats.

But man is not destined to vanish. He can be killed, but he cannot be destroyed, because his soul is deathless and his spirit is irrepressible. Therefore, though the situation seems dark in the context of the confrontation between the superpowers, the silver lining is provided by amazing phenomenon that the very nations which have spent incalculable resources and energy for the production of deadly weapons are desperately trying to find out how they might never be used. They threaten each other, intimidate each other and go to the brink, but before the total hour arrives they withdraw from the brink. The phrase 'Go to the brink' in the passage

Answer: Advancing to the stage of war but not engaging in it.

The phrase 'go to the brink' is immediately followed by 'but before the total hour arrives they withdraw from the brink.' This context indicates that the nations approach the very edge of war or total conflict without actually initiating it. They advance to the critical point of confrontation but pull back before full engagement.

But man is not destined to vanish. He can be killed, but he cannot be destroyed, because his soul is deathless and his spirit is irrepressible. Therefore, though the situation seems dark in the context of the confrontation between the superpowers, the silver lining is provided by amazing phenomenon that the very nations which have spent incalculable resources and energy for the production of deadly weapons are desperately trying to find out how they might never be used. They threaten each other, intimidate each other and go to the brink, but before the total hour arrives they withdraw from the brink. In the author's opinion

Answer: Nations in possession of huge stockpiles of lethal weapons are trying hard to avoid actual conflict.

The author states that the nations with deadly weapons 'are desperately trying to find out how they might never be used' and that they 'withdraw from the brink' before total conflict. This clearly indicates that, despite possessing these weapons, the nations are actively working to prevent their use and avoid actual warfare. Their actions demonstrate a strong desire to avert conflict.

But man is not destined to vanish. He can be killed, but he cannot be destroyed, because his soul is deathless and his spirit is irrepressible. Therefore, though the situation seems dark in the context of the confrontation between the superpowers, the silver lining is provided by amazing phenomenon that the very nations which have spent incalculable resources and energy for the production of deadly weapons are desperately trying to find out how they might never be used. They threaten each other, intimidate each other and go to the brink, but before the total hour arrives they withdraw from the brink. 'Irrepressible' in the second line means

Answer: unrestrainable

The word 'irrepressible' is used in the context of 'his spirit is irrepressible.' This implies a spirit that cannot be held back, suppressed, or controlled. Therefore, 'unrestrainable' is the most fitting synonym, conveying the idea of an unyielding and indomitable spirit.

(1) When it comes to their passion of sports, the modern world is experiencing a bit of an identity crisis. We are concerned about sports violence at one end of the spectrum. The possibility of head trauma in football worries us. We are concerned that by concentrating so intensely on one sport so young, our kids' bodies are suffering. We contend that in order to protect our athletes, we must modify our current systems. However, violent sports like mixed martial arts are now more popular than ever. How do we account for our seemingly contradictory attitudes about athletes? Why do people get upset when a quarterback is hit too hard yet applaud when a fighter passes out on the mat like a dead tree? (2) The response to these queries is both straightforward and intricate. The short explanation is that a sport like mixed martial arts, which involves two individuals fighting in a ring, is meant to be violent. The movement of the ball from one area to the next is the focus of football, on the other hand. It would be incredibly naive to claim that football is not about violence, though. The issue becomes more challenging at that point. What remains when we take football's brutality out? (3) It plays to our human nature, which is the more nuanced and melancholy explanation for why we can't seem to decide whether or not we want violence. Players are the new gladiators, and the football field is the new Colosseum. The instinct for survival is one of the strongest in humans. The fact that we are naturally drawn to those in danger and their struggle for existence makes us amused when they are in danger. We don't want to see people suffer, but that doesn't make us wicked. But we want to see people getting hit. (4) The issue is that violence in sports has no clear-cut answer. At the same time, we desire it and don't want it. It appears that our culture has opted to permit it in some contexts where we believe it belongs, such as mixed martial arts, while decrying it in others, such as football. Football supporters are concerned about what will happen to the sport in the next years as more stories of brain injuries emerge. But it's most probable that nothing will alter. We will debate the need for action over supper, go to the Colosseum to support each major victory, and then return home. Read the following clause in the passage. Players are the new gladiators, and the football field is the new Colosseum. The statement "the players are the new gladiators" refers to which of these?

Answer: In the same manner that people enjoyed watching gladiators commit suicide in ancient Rome, they enjoy watching football players collide with one another.

The passage draws a direct parallel between modern football and ancient gladiatorial contests. It explains that humans are 'naturally drawn to those in danger and their struggle for existence,' and while we don't want people to suffer, 'we want to see people getting hit.' This comparison highlights the primal enjoyment derived from watching violent collisions in sports, similar to how audiences in ancient Rome watched gladiators.

Violent Ways (1) When it comes to their passion of sports, the modern world is experiencing a bit of an identity crisis. We are concerned about sports violence at one end of the spectrum. The possibility of head trauma in football worries us. We are concerned that by concentrating so intensely on one sport so young, our kids' bodies are suffering. We contend that in order to protect our athletes, we must modify our current systems. However, violent sports like mixed martial arts are now more popular than ever. How do we account for our seemingly contradictory attitudes about athletes? Why do people get upset when a quarterback is hit too hard yet applaud when a fighter passes out on the mat like a dead tree? (2) The response to these queries is both straightforward and intricate. The short explanation is that a sport like mixed martial arts, which involves two individuals fighting in a ring, is meant to be violent. The movement of the ball from one area to the next is the focus of football, on the other hand. It would be incredibly naive to claim that football is not about violence, though. The issue becomes more challenging at that point. What remains when we take football's brutality out? (3) It plays to our human nature, which is the more nuanced and melancholy explanation for why we can't seem to decide whether or not we want violence. Players are the new gladiators, and the football field is the new Colosseum. The instinct for survival is one of the strongest in humans. The fact that we are naturally drawn to those in danger and their struggle for existence makes us amused when they are in danger. We don't want to see people suffer, but that doesn't make us wicked. But we want to see people getting hit. (4) The issue is that violence in sports has no clear-cut answer. At the same time, we desire it and don't want it. It appears that our culture has opted to permit it in some contexts where we believe it belongs, such as mixed martial arts, while decrying it in others, such as football. Football supporters are concerned about what will happen to the sport in the next years as more stories of brain injuries emerge. But it's most probable that nothing will alter. We will debate the need for action over supper, go to the Colosseum to support each major victory, and then return home. What does paragraph two add to the progression of the concepts in the passage?

Answer: It demonstrates the difficulty of the subject the author is addressing.

Paragraph two states that the response to the queries about contradictory attitudes is 'both straightforward and intricate,' and later adds, 'The issue becomes more challenging at that point.' This language directly signals to the reader that the topic is complex and not easily resolved. The paragraph serves to emphasize the inherent difficulty and nuanced nature of the subject matter.

Violent Ways (1) When it comes to their passion of sports, the modern world is experiencing a bit of an identity crisis. We are concerned about sports violence at one end of the spectrum. The possibility of head trauma in football worries us. We are concerned that by concentrating so intensely on one sport so young, our kids' bodies are suffering. We contend that in order to protect our athletes, we must modify our current systems. However, violent sports like mixed martial arts are now more popular than ever. How do we account for our seemingly contradictory attitudes about athletes? Why do people get upset when a quarterback is hit too hard yet applaud when a fighter passes out on the mat like a dead tree? (2) The response to these queries is both straightforward and intricate. The short explanation is that a sport like mixed martial arts, which involves two individuals fighting in a ring, is meant to be violent. The movement of the ball from one area to the next is the focus of football, on the other hand. It would be incredibly naive to claim that football is not about violence, though. The issue becomes more challenging at that point. What remains when we take football's brutality out? (3) It plays to our human nature, which is the more nuanced and melancholy explanation for why we can't seem to decide whether or not we want violence. Players are the new gladiators, and the football field is the new Colosseum. The instinct for survival is one of the strongest in humans. The fact that we are naturally drawn to those in danger and their struggle for existence makes us amused when they are in danger. We don't want to see people suffer, but that doesn't make us wicked. But we want to see people getting hit. (4) The issue is that violence in sports has no clear-cut answer. At the same time, we desire it and don't want it. It appears that our culture has opted to permit it in some contexts where we believe it belongs, such as mixed martial arts, while decrying it in others, such as football. Football supporters are concerned about what will happen to the sport in the next years as more stories of brain injuries emerge. But it's most probable that nothing will alter. We will debate the need for action over supper, go to the Colosseum to support each major victory, and then return home. Read the sentence in the first paragraph. When it comes to their passion of sports, the modern world is experiencing a little bit of an identity crisis. What is the problem (if any) with this quote in the context of the passage?

Answer: In this quotation, the author introduces the "world," however the rest of the piece solely touches on American culture.

The author initially uses the broad term 'modern world' but then consistently narrows the scope to 'our kids,' 'our athletes,' and 'our culture,' particularly discussing American football and mixed martial arts. The arguments and examples provided throughout the passage are specific to a Western, likely American, cultural context. This creates a discrepancy between the initial global claim and the subsequent localized focus.

Violent Ways (1) When it comes to their passion of sports, the modern world is experiencing a bit of an identity crisis. We are concerned about sports violence at one end of the spectrum. The possibility of head trauma in football worries us. We are concerned that by concentrating so intensely on one sport so young, our kids' bodies are suffering. We contend that in order to protect our athletes, we must modify our current systems. However, violent sports like mixed martial arts are now more popular than ever. How do we account for our seemingly contradictory attitudes about athletes? Why do people get upset when a quarterback is hit too hard yet applaud when a fighter passes out on the mat like a dead tree? (2) The response to these queries is both straightforward and intricate. The short explanation is that a sport like mixed martial arts, which involves two individuals fighting in a ring, is meant to be violent. The movement of the ball from one area to the next is the focus of football, on the other hand. It would be incredibly naive to claim that football is not about violence, though. The issue becomes more challenging at that point. What remains when we take football's brutality out? (3) It plays to our human nature, which is the more nuanced and melancholy explanation for why we can't seem to decide whether or not we want violence. Players are the new gladiators, and the football field is the new Colosseum. The instinct for survival is one of the strongest in humans. The fact that we are naturally drawn to those in danger and their struggle for existence makes us amused when they are in danger. We don't want to see people suffer, but that doesn't make us wicked. But we want to see people getting hit. (4) The issue is that violence in sports has no clear-cut answer. At the same time, we desire it and don't want it. It appears that our culture has opted to permit it in some contexts where we believe it belongs, such as mixed martial arts, while decrying it in others, such as football. Football supporters are concerned about what will happen to the sport in the next years as more stories of brain injuries emerge. But it's most probable that nothing will alter. We will debate the need for action over supper, go to the Colosseum to support each major victory, and then return home. Which part of the passage best captures the author's perspective on sports violence?

Answer: "It plays to our human nature, which is the more nuanced and melancholy reason why we can't seem to decide whether we want violence or not."

This sentence from paragraph 3 directly addresses the central conflict the author explores: society's contradictory feelings about sports violence. It attributes this internal struggle to 'human nature' and describes it as the 'more nuanced and melancholy explanation,' indicating it's the author's core perspective on why we can't resolve this issue. The author's viewpoint is that this ambivalence is deeply ingrained in us.

"Violent Ways (1) When it comes to their passion of sports, the modern world is experiencing a bit of an identity crisis. We are concerned about sports violence at one end of the spectrum. The possibility of head trauma in football worries us. We are concerned that by concentrating so intensely on one sport so young, our kids' bodies are suffering. We contend that in order to protect our athletes, we must modify our current systems. However, violent sports like mixed martial arts are now more popular than ever. How do we account for our seemingly contradictory attitudes about athletes? Why do people get upset when a quarterback is hit too hard yet applaud when a fighter passes out on the mat like a dead tree? (2) The response to these queries is both straightforward and intricate. The short explanation is that a sport like mixed martial arts, which involves two individuals fighting in a ring, is meant to be violent. The movement of the ball from one area to the next is the focus of football, on the other hand. It would be incredibly naive to claim that football is not about violence, though. The issue becomes more challenging at that point. What remains when we take football's brutality out? (3) It plays to our human nature, which is the more nuanced and melancholy explanation for why we can't seem to decide whether or not we want violence. Players are the new gladiators, and the football field is the new Colosseum. The instinct for survival is one of the strongest in humans. The fact that we are naturally drawn to those in danger and their struggle for existence makes us amused when they are in danger. We don't want to see people suffer, but that doesn't make us wicked. But we want to see people getting hit. (4) The issue is that violence in sports has no clear-cut answer. At the same time, we desire it and don't want it. It appears that our culture has opted to permit it in some contexts where we believe it belongs, such as mixed martial arts, while decrying it in others, such as football. Football supporters are concerned about what will happen to the sport in the next years as more stories of brain injuries emerge. But it's most probable that nothing will alter. We will debate the need for action over supper, go to the Colosseum to support each major victory, and then return home. Which of the following statements about the author's viewpoint in paragraph 4 may the audience infer?"

Answer: People do not want violence when they think rationally, but they relish it while they are in the moment.

Paragraph 4 explicitly states, 'At the same time, we desire it and don't want it.' The concluding sentence, 'We will debate the need for action over supper, go to the Colosseum to support each major victory, and then return home,' illustrates this duality. It shows people rationally discussing the problem (not wanting violence) but then actively participating in and enjoying the violent spectacle (relishing it in the moment).

Violent Ways (1) When it comes to their passion of sports, the modern world is experiencing a bit of an identity crisis. We are concerned about sports violence at one end of the spectrum. The possibility of head trauma in football worries us. We are concerned that by concentrating so intensely on one sport so young, our kids' bodies are suffering. We contend that in order to protect our athletes, we must modify our current systems. However, violent sports like mixed martial arts are now more popular than ever. How do we account for our seemingly contradictory attitudes about athletes? Why do people get upset when a quarterback is hit too hard yet applaud when a fighter passes out on the mat like a dead tree? (2) The response to these queries is both straightforward and intricate. The short explanation is that a sport like mixed martial arts, which involves two individuals fighting in a ring, is meant to be violent. The movement of the ball from one area to the next is the focus of football, on the other hand. It would be incredibly naive to claim that football is not about violence, though. The issue becomes more challenging at that point. What remains when we take football's brutality out? (3) It plays to our human nature, which is the more nuanced and melancholy explanation for why we can't seem to decide whether or not we want violence. Players are the new gladiators, and the football field is the new Colosseum. The instinct for survival is one of the strongest in humans. The fact that we are naturally drawn to those in danger and their struggle for existence makes us amused when they are in danger. We don't want to see people suffer, but that doesn't make us wicked. But we want to see people getting hit. (4) The issue is that violence in sports has no clear-cut answer. At the same time, we desire it and don't want it. It appears that our culture has opted to permit it in some contexts where we believe it belongs, such as mixed martial arts, while decrying it in others, such as football. Football supporters are concerned about what will happen to the sport in the next years as more stories of brain injuries emerge. But it's most probable that nothing will alter. We will debate the need for action over supper, go to the Colosseum to support each major victory, and then return home. Which of the following best sums up the article's structure?

Answer: The author presents a challenging issue before delving into it in more detail later on.

The article begins in paragraph 1 by introducing a 'challenging issue' – society's identity crisis regarding sports violence. Subsequent paragraphs, particularly paragraphs 2 and 3, then delve deeper into this issue, offering 'straightforward and intricate' responses and a 'nuanced and melancholy explanation.' This structure shows the author presenting a problem and then elaborating on its complexities rather than offering solutions or conflicting viewpoints for the reader to choose from.

Violent Ways (1) When it comes to their passion of sports, the modern world is experiencing a bit of an identity crisis. We are concerned about sports violence at one end of the spectrum. The possibility of head trauma in football worries us. We are concerned that by concentrating so intensely on one sport so young, our kids' bodies are suffering. We contend that in order to protect our athletes, we must modify our current systems. However, violent sports like mixed martial arts are now more popular than ever. How do we account for our seemingly contradictory attitudes about athletes? Why do people get upset when a quarterback is hit too hard yet applaud when a fighter passes out on the mat like a dead tree? (2) The response to these queries is both straightforward and intricate. The short explanation is that a sport like mixed martial arts, which involves two individuals fighting in a ring, is meant to be violent. The movement of the ball from one area to the next is the focus of football, on the other hand. It would be incredibly naive to claim that football is not about violence, though. The issue becomes more challenging at that point. What remains when we take football's brutality out? (3) It plays to our human nature, which is the more nuanced and melancholy explanation for why we can't seem to decide whether or not we want violence. Players are the new gladiators, and the football field is the new Colosseum. The instinct for survival is one of the strongest in humans. The fact that we are naturally drawn to those in danger and their struggle for existence makes us amused when they are in danger. We don't want to see people suffer, but that doesn't make us wicked. But we want to see people getting hit. (4) The issue is that violence in sports has no clear-cut answer. At the same time, we desire it and don't want it. It appears that our culture has opted to permit it in some contexts where we believe it belongs, such as mixed martial arts, while decrying it in others, such as football. Football supporters are concerned about what will happen to the sport in the next years as more stories of brain injuries emerge. But it's most probable that nothing will alter. We will debate the need for action over supper, go to the Colosseum to support each major victory, and then return home. Part A Which of the following best captures the author's assertion regarding how society views sports violence?

Answer: People are unsure of their feelings on sports violence based on the popularity of various sports.

The passage highlights society's 'identity crisis' and 'seemingly contradictory attitudes' towards sports violence. It contrasts concerns about head trauma in football with the rising popularity of violent sports like mixed martial arts. This demonstrates that people hold conflicting views and are uncertain about their stance on violence, depending on the specific sport or context.

Violent Ways (1) When it comes to their passion of sports, the modern world is experiencing a bit of an identity crisis. We are concerned about sports violence at one end of the spectrum. The possibility of head trauma in football worries us. We are concerned that by concentrating so intensely on one sport so young, our kids' bodies are suffering. We contend that in order to protect our athletes, we must modify our current systems. However, violent sports like mixed martial arts are now more popular than ever. How do we account for our seemingly contradictory attitudes about athletes? Why do people get upset when a quarterback is hit too hard yet applaud when a fighter passes out on the mat like a dead tree? (2) The response to these queries is both straightforward and intricate. The short explanation is that a sport like mixed martial arts, which involves two individuals fighting in a ring, is meant to be violent. The movement of the ball from one area to the next is the focus of football, on the other hand. It would be incredibly naive to claim that football is not about violence, though. The issue becomes more challenging at that point. What remains when we take football's brutality out? (3) It plays to our human nature, which is the more nuanced and melancholy explanation for why we can't seem to decide whether or not we want violence. Players are the new gladiators, and the football field is the new Colosseum. The instinct for survival is one of the strongest in humans. The fact that we are naturally drawn to those in danger and their struggle for existence makes us amused when they are in danger. We don't want to see people suffer, but that doesn't make us wicked. But we want to see people getting hit. (4) The issue is that violence in sports has no clear-cut answer. At the same time, we desire it and don't want it. It appears that our culture has opted to permit it in some contexts where we believe it belongs, such as mixed martial arts, while decrying it in others, such as football. Football supporters are concerned about what will happen to the sport in the next years as more stories of brain injuries emerge. But it's most probable that nothing will alter. We will debate the need for action over supper, go to the Colosseum to support each major victory, and then return home. Part B What passage from the paper exemplifies Part A's response the best?

Answer: We'll argue over dinner about how something ought to be done, then go to the Colosseum and cheer for every huge hit.

This sentence perfectly encapsulates the contradictory nature of society's view on sports violence. It shows people engaging in rational discussion about the need for action (suggesting they don't want violence) but then immediately going to an event to cheer for violent acts ('every huge hit'). This juxtaposition directly illustrates the uncertainty and mixed feelings described in Part A.

Violent Ways (1) When it comes to their passion of sports, the modern world is experiencing a bit of an identity crisis. We are concerned about sports violence at one end of the spectrum. The possibility of head trauma in football worries us. We are concerned that by concentrating so intensely on one sport so young, our kids' bodies are suffering. We contend that in order to protect our athletes, we must modify our current systems. However, violent sports like mixed martial arts are now more popular than ever. How do we account for our seemingly contradictory attitudes about athletes? Why do people get upset when a quarterback is hit too hard yet applaud when a fighter passes out on the mat like a dead tree? (2) The response to these queries is both straightforward and intricate. The short explanation is that a sport like mixed martial arts, which involves two individuals fighting in a ring, is meant to be violent. The movement of the ball from one area to the next is the focus of football, on the other hand. It would be incredibly naive to claim that football is not about violence, though. The issue becomes more challenging at that point. What remains when we take football's brutality out? (3) It plays to our human nature, which is the more nuanced and melancholy explanation for why we can't seem to decide whether or not we want violence. Players are the new gladiators, and the football field is the new Colosseum. The instinct for survival is one of the strongest in humans. The fact that we are naturally drawn to those in danger and their struggle for existence makes us amused when they are in danger. We don't want to see people suffer, but that doesn't make us wicked. But we want to see people getting hit. (4) The issue is that violence in sports has no clear-cut answer. At the same time, we desire it and don't want it. It appears that our culture has opted to permit it in some contexts where we believe it belongs, such as mixed martial arts, while decrying it in others, such as football. Football supporters are concerned about what will happen to the sport in the next years as more stories of brain injuries emerge. But it's most probable that nothing will alter. We will debate the need for action over supper, go to the Colosseum to support each major victory, and then return home. Read the following passage from Paragraph 4: We will debate the need for action over supper, go to the Colosseum to support each major victory, and then return home. The word "dinner table" is used by the author in this line for what reason?

Answer: To stress the point that individuals behave differently when watching a sporting event but are anti-violent when discussing the issue at home at the "dinner table."

The author uses 'debate the need for action over supper' in direct contrast to 'go to the Colosseum to support each major victory.' This contrast highlights the difference between people's rational, often anti-violent discussions in a domestic setting and their emotional, often pro-violent reactions when immersed in the spectacle of a sporting event. It emphasizes the hypocrisy or duality of human behavior regarding sports violence.

(1) Global connectivity is made possible through social networking sites and apps, which also let users connect with one another right away. Employers and admissions offices are beginning to use these websites as a tool to learn more about possible candidates and eventually inform their judgments as social networking grows more pervasive in contemporary life. Thus, a social media statement you made could cost you the opportunity to attend the college of your choice or land your ideal job. (2) A recent survey found that 41% of students were "not at all concerned" about college admission offices using their social networking information in the admissions process, compared to only 30% of high school students who were "very concerned." Users of social networking sites believe they have control over what information is accessible to employers and institutions since these platforms typically include a "private" setting that gives users a sense of protection. Social media platforms, on the other hand, are meant to be a place where people can express themselves, share their life with friends and family, and meet new people. People will be compelled to create a "acceptable" image of themselves once companies and colleges begin prying into these sites. This calls for censorship—possibly self-censorship, but still censorship. Additionally, this form of infiltration may result in prejudice, which is difficult to track. (3) Employers and colleges are prohibited from discriminating against Americans by law. For instance, a job interviewer is not permitted to directly inquire about a candidate's age, sexual preference, worldview, or political convictions. Discrimination is a result of these inquiries. These questions are answered by the typical person's social networking activities, which also makes them susceptible to prejudice. (4) Employers and institutions are intrusive in the personal lives of their applicants even if people have some choice over the information they publish on social networking sites. Many Americans already feel that their personal lives have much too much intrusion from their work lives. A life outside of work is less possible for modern folks as a result of rising inflation and stagnant wages. Employers now seek to meddle in people's meager social lives. We must be able to keep various aspects of our lives apart for the sake of our own mental health. (5) Employers and institutions may claim that their actions are intended to weed out students who exhibit extreme behavior. For instance, an employer would not want to hire someone who has spread hate speech with anti-Semitic overtones online. However, just as trying to catch one terrorist doesn't excuse the government listening in on everyone's phone calls, these extreme situations do not warrant monitoring everyone. Employers and educational institutions should respect people's right to some degree of privacy in their lives. Read the following from the first paragraph: Employers and admissions offices are beginning to use these websites as a tool to learn more about possible candidates and eventually inform their judgments as social networking grows more pervasive in contemporary life. What most closely describes the word "ubiquitous" in the context of the sentence?

Answer: Seemingly everywhere

The sentence states that social networking 'grows more pervasive in contemporary life,' meaning it is becoming increasingly widespread and present in all aspects of modern existence. The word 'ubiquitous' means existing or being everywhere, especially at the same time, which perfectly aligns with the idea of something becoming 'seemingly everywhere' and deeply integrated into daily life.