TABE Reading Practice Test 5
(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?
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
The correct response is (C), as it comes the closest to capturing the meaning of "ubiquitous." The author makes the observation that social networking is pervasive in contemporary culture and is only getting bigger. He does not address its significance (D) or necessity (A), nor does he imply that the increasing use of these platforms is detrimental (B).
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?
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
The article's concluding statement effectively summarizes the hypocrisy that the author is highlighting in society.
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
Correct!
Wrong!
The answer is Human society will survive despite the serious threat of total annihilation., because the author talks about survival and the threats of annihilation.
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?
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
The paragraph contains a significant amount of time in which the author argues that the issue is complex and that there is no straightforward solution. Along with being true to the author's argument, answer choice (A) is the only one that allows for this intricacy.
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?
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
The only quote that discusses the author's justification for the world's fixation with violence is found in answer choice (B), making it the right selection. The other response options are ideas that the author use to support her thesis rather than ones that directly reflect her viewpoint on the matter.
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?
Correct!
Wrong!
The conclusion sentence states two possible paths that could explain the arrival of a growth in smart phone popularity. These two suppositions are guesses at what is causing this trend. Because the author injects minimal bias and leaves the answer to the reader’s interpretation, the author is simply presenting explanations as choice ‘Present two possible explanations for the growing popularity of smart phones’ indicates. The other choices are either irrelevant or insufficiently supported by text evidence.
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?
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
Despite giving several perspectives throughout the text, the author never proposes a workable solution. The sole choice that accommodates this absence of a solution is answer choice (B).
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?
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
Answer option (B) is accurate because, despite the author's initial attempt to provide a straightforward response to the query she posed in the preceding paragraph, she also deconstructs that response in order to set up the audience for the complexities she will detail throughout the remainder of the argument. This does not necessarily support the author's premise or serve as a counterargument (C) (D). In paragraph 3, she presents her argument.
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?
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
In order to underline her point that while we may be against violent sports in theory, we enjoy them in fact, the author contrasts the "dining table" with "the Colosseum." The other answer options don't actually touch on this comparison.
(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?
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
In this quotation, the author makes a reference to ancient Rome in an effort to provide some light on our preoccupation with violence. This meaning and tone are best portrayed by answer option (A). The author isn't criticizing football player (C) or demanding an end to football (B) (D); rather, she is explaining why Americans enjoy it.
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
Correct!
Wrong!
Based on the contextual description of trivial uses and knowledge, “frivolous” means useless or unnecessary. So if the author believes that individuals not involved in business are unnecessarily using smart phones, that the author would think that these people do not need smart phones (choice believes that the average individual does not need a smart phone.). The author makes no mention of their specific hopes for how the technology will turn out in the future, so choice ‘hopes that technology ceases to expand its scope. ‘ and choice ‘wants to see more developments added to smart phone technology. ‘ can be eliminated. The authors matter-of-fact tone allows you to rule out “fascination” (choice is fascinated by the endless capabilities on smart phones.), and there is no evidence to support whether or not the author has a smart phone (choice has a smart phone.). Choice ‘believes that the average individual does not need a smart phone.’ is the best option.
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
Correct!
Wrong!
The answer is Nations in possession of huge stockpiles of lethal weapons are trying hard to avoid actual conflict., because the author clearly states the opinion of nations in possession of huge stockpiles of lethal weapons are trying hard to avoid actual 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
Correct!
Wrong!
The answer is unrestrainable, because irrepressible means unrestrainable. Which means death or a dark side.
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?
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
In this quote, the author mentions the "world," but then focuses mostly on football and mixed martial arts, both of which are primarily American sports. By focusing solely on issues that Americans can connect to, the author has alienated a large portion of her audience if her intention was to address the situation of the globe.
"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?"
Correct!
Wrong!
Explanation:
Because it provides a more detailed explanation of the author's final line, answer option (C) is the best one. The author contends that despite people's desire to abhor violence, they find it entertaining when they witness it. Answers (B) and (D) do not match the content of the text, while answer (A) contradicts the first phrase of Paragraph 4.
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
Correct!
Wrong!
The answer is Advancing to the stage of war but not engaging in it., because he wanted the war to start, but she wanted to keep peace and not show that he was encouraging it.