A common problem in interpersonal communication is mindreading, which is assuming we understand what another person thinks, feels, or perceives. When we mindread, we act as if we know what's on another's mind, and this can get us into trouble. Marriage counselors and communication scholars say mindreading contributes to conflict between people. The danger of mindreading is that we may misinterpret others and have no way to check the accuracy of our perceptions. Sometimes we do understand one another, but sometimes we don't. Consider a few examples. One person says to her partner, I know you didn't plan anything for our anniversary because it doesn't matter to you. Whether or not the partner made plans, it's impossible to guess motives or to know why the partner forgot, if indeed he did. A supervisor notices that an employee is late for work several days in a row and assumes the employee isn't committed to the job. One friend tells another, You were late coming over because you're still mad about what happened yesterday. The speaker is guessing reasons for the friend's tardiness and could well be wrong. Mindreading also occurs when we say things such as I know why you're upset (Has the person said she or he is upset?) or You don't care about me anymore (maybe the other person is too preoccupied or worried to be as attentive as usual.) We also mindread when we tell ourselves we know how somebody else will feel or react or what he or she will do. The truth is we don't really know; we're only guessing. When we mindread, we impose our perspectives on others instead of allowing them to say what they think. This can cause misunderstandings and resentment because most of us prefer to speak for ourselves. What is the relationship between the parts of the first sentence in the passage?
a. definition
b. listing
c. order of importance
d. example
Ques. 2A common problem in interpersonal communication is mindreading, which is assuming we understand what another person thinks, feels, or perceives. When we mindread, we act as if we know what's on another's mind, and this can get us into trouble. Marriage counselors and communication scholars say mindreading contributes to conflict between people. The danger of mindreading is that we may misinterpret others and have no way to check the accuracy of our perceptions. Sometimes we do understand one another, but sometimes we don't. Consider a few examples. One person says to her partner, I know you didn't plan anything for our anniversary because it doesn't matter to you. Whether or not the partner made plans, it's impossible to guess motives or to know why the partner forgot, if indeed he did. A supervisor notices that an employee is late for work several days in a row and assumes the employee isn't committed to the job. One friend tells another, You were late coming over because you're still mad about what happened yesterday. The speaker is guessing reasons for the friend's tardiness and could well be wrong. Mindreading also occurs when we say things such as I know why you're upset (Has the person said she or he is upset?) or You don't care about me anymore (maybe the other person is too preoccupied or worried to be as attentive as usual.) We also mindread when we tell ourselves we know how somebody else will feel or react or what he or she will do. The truth is we don't really know; we're only guessing. When we mindread, we impose our perspectives on others instead of allowing them to say what they think. This can cause misunderstandings and resentment because most of us prefer to speak for ourselves. Marriage counselors and communication scholars say mindreading contributes to conflict between people. The above statement is a statement of
a. fact.
b. opinion.
Ques. 3A common problem in interpersonal communication is mindreading, which is assuming we understand what another person thinks, feels, or perceives. When we mindread, we act as if we know what's on another's mind, and this can get us into trouble. Marriage counselors and communication scholars say mindreading contributes to conflict between people. The danger of mindreading is that we may misinterpret others and have no way to check the accuracy of our perceptions. Sometimes we do understand one another, but sometimes we don't. Consider a few examples. One person says to her partner, I know you didn't plan anything for our anniversary because it doesn't matter to you. Whether or not the partner made plans, it's impossible to guess motives or to know why the partner forgot, if indeed he did. A supervisor notices that an employee is late for work several days in a row and assumes the employee isn't committed to the job. One friend tells another, You were late coming over because you're still mad about what happened yesterday. The speaker is guessing reasons for the friend's tardiness and could well be wrong. Mindreading also occurs when we say things such as I know why you're upset (Has the person said she or he is upset?) or You don't care about me anymore (maybe the other person is too preoccupied or worried to be as attentive as usual.) We also mindread when we tell ourselves we know how somebody else will feel or react or what he or she will do. The truth is we don't really know; we're only guessing. When we mindread, we impose our perspectives on others instead of allowing them to say what they think. This can cause misunderstandings and resentment because most of us prefer to speak for ourselves. In the last paragraph, the word perspectives means
a. worries.
b. points of view.
c. prejudices.
d. misunderstandings.
Ques. 4A common problem in interpersonal communication is mindreading, which is assuming we understand what another person thinks, feels, or perceives. When we mindread, we act as if we know what's on another's mind, and this can get us into trouble. Marriage counselors and communication scholars say mindreading contributes to conflict between people. The danger of mindreading is that we may misinterpret others and have no way to check the accuracy of our perceptions. Sometimes we do understand one another, but sometimes we don't. Consider a few examples. One person says to her partner, I know you didn't plan anything for our anniversary because it doesn't matter to you. Whether or not the partner made plans, it's impossible to guess motives or to know why the partner forgot, if indeed he did. A supervisor notices that an employee is late for work several days in a row and assumes the employee isn't committed to the job. One friend tells another, You were late coming over because you're still mad about what happened yesterday. The speaker is guessing reasons for the friend's tardiness and could well be wrong. Mindreading also occurs when we say things such as I know why you're upset (Has the person said she or he is upset?) or You don't care about me anymore (maybe the other person is too preoccupied or worried to be as attentive as usual.) We also mindread when we tell ourselves we know how somebody else will feel or react or what he or she will do. The truth is we don't really know; we're only guessing. When we mindread, we impose our perspectives on others instead of allowing them to say what they think. This can cause misunderstandings and resentment because most of us prefer to speak for ourselves. The main idea of this passage is
a. mindreading is a common problem in communication.
b. it is impossible to guess the motives of other people.
c. mindreading is a fascinating subject that is being studied by psychologists.
d. mindreaders may misunderstand what another person is thinking.
Ques. 5The best-known decision affecting prejudicial press coverage of criminal cases is Sheppard v. Maxwell. In 1954, Dr. Samuel Sheppard of Cleveland was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering his wife. His conviction followed reams of newspaper stories, many of which proclaimed his guilt before the jury had decided the case. The jurors, who went home each evening, were told by the judge not to read newspapers or pay attention to broadcast reports, but no one monitored what the jurors did. Twelve years later, lawyer F. Lee Bailey took Sheppard's trial to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a conviction was overturned on the premise that Sheppard had been a victim of a biased jury. In writing the decision, Justice Tom C. Clark prescribed several remedies. He said that reporters should have been limited to certain areas in the courtroom, that the news media should not have been allowed to interview the witnesses, and that the court should have forbidden statements outside of the courtroom. The outcome of the Sheppard case led to many courtroom experiments with restrictions on the press. The most widespread practices were restraining (gag) orders and closed proceedings. With a gag order, the judge limited what the press could report. But since 1980, several court cases have overturned most of these limitations so that today the press is rarely excluded from courtroom proceedings, and the exclusion lasts only as long as it takes the news organization to appeal to a higher court for access. Cameras in the courtroom is a sticky issue between judges, who want to avoid the disruption that cameras present, and broadcast newspeople, who want to photograph what is going on. In selected cases, however, cameras have been allowed to record complete trials. In 1994, for example, Court TV broadcast the entire trial of O.J. Simpson. Cameras in the courtroom is a state-by-state decision. Some states allow cameras during civil but not criminal trials. Other states try to completely limit access. The U.S. courts and the press are not yet completely comfortable partners. From this passage, you may infer that
a. Sheppard was innocent of the murder charge.
b. today the press is often blocked from court proceedings.
c. newspaper reporters were biased against Sheppard. d. Justice Tom Clark was biased when he made his ruling.
Ques. 6The best-known decision affecting prejudicial press coverage of criminal cases is Sheppard v. Maxwell. In 1954, Dr. Samuel Sheppard of Cleveland was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering his wife. His conviction followed reams of newspaper stories, many of which proclaimed his guilt before the jury had decided the case. The jurors, who went home each evening, were told by the judge not to read newspapers or pay attention to broadcast reports, but no one monitored what the jurors did. Twelve years later, lawyer F. Lee Bailey took Sheppard's trial to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a conviction was overturned on the premise that Sheppard had been a victim of a biased jury. In writing the decision, Justice Tom C. Clark prescribed several remedies. He said that reporters should have been limited to certain areas in the courtroom, that the news media should not have been allowed to interview the witnesses, and that the court should have forbidden statements outside of the courtroom. The outcome of the Sheppard case led to many courtroom experiments with restrictions on the press. The most widespread practices were restraining (gag) orders and closed proceedings. With a gag order, the judge limited what the press could report. But since 1980, several court cases have overturned most of these limitations so that today the press is rarely excluded from courtroom proceedings, and the exclusion lasts only as long as it takes the news organization to appeal to a higher court for access. Cameras in the courtroom is a sticky issue between judges, who want to avoid the disruption that cameras present, and broadcast newspeople, who want to photograph what is going on. In selected cases, however, cameras have been allowed to record complete trials. In 1994, for example, Court TV broadcast the entire trial of O.J. Simpson. Cameras in the courtroom is a state-by-state decision. Some states allow cameras during civil but not criminal trials. Other states try to completely limit access. The U.S. courts and the press are not yet completely comfortable partners. The author implies that
a. cameras should never be allowed in a courtroom.
b. judges and news people fight over media access to trials.
c. filming trials rarely influences their outcomes.
d. U. S. courts are usually in agreement with the wishes of the media.
Ques. 7The best-known decision affecting prejudicial press coverage of criminal cases is Sheppard v. Maxwell. In 1954, Dr. Samuel Sheppard of Cleveland was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering his wife. His conviction followed reams of newspaper stories, many of which proclaimed his guilt before the jury had decided the case. The jurors, who went home each evening, were told by the judge not to read newspapers or pay attention to broadcast reports, but no one monitored what the jurors did. Twelve years later, lawyer F. Lee Bailey took Sheppard's trial to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a conviction was overturned on the premise that Sheppard had been a victim of a biased jury. In writing the decision, Justice Tom C. Clark prescribed several remedies. He said that reporters should have been limited to certain areas in the courtroom, that the news media should not have been allowed to interview the witnesses, and that the court should have forbidden statements outside of the courtroom. The outcome of the Sheppard case led to many courtroom experiments with restrictions on the press. The most widespread practices were restraining (gag) orders and closed proceedings. With a gag order, the judge limited what the press could report. But since 1980, several court cases have overturned most of these limitations so that today the press is rarely excluded from courtroom proceedings, and the exclusion lasts only as long as it takes the news organization to appeal to a higher court for access. Cameras in the courtroom is a sticky issue between judges, who want to avoid the disruption that cameras present, and broadcast newspeople, who want to photograph what is going on. In selected cases, however, cameras have been allowed to record complete trials. In 1994, for example, Court TV broadcast the entire trial of O.J. Simpson. Cameras in the courtroom is a state-by-state decision. Some states allow cameras during civil but not criminal trials. Other states try to completely limit access. The U.S. courts and the press are not yet completely comfortable partners. According to the passage, why were the jurors in the Sheppard case thought to be biased?
a. The jurors were all familiar with the murder victim.
b. The jurors ignored the judge's caution against reading news reports.
c. The judge indicated his belief in the guilt of the defendant.
d. Sheppard was not a likeable personality.
Ques. 8The best-known decision affecting prejudicial press coverage of criminal cases is Sheppard v. Maxwell. In 1954, Dr. Samuel Sheppard of Cleveland was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering his wife. His conviction followed reams of newspaper stories, many of which proclaimed his guilt before the jury had decided the case. The jurors, who went home each evening, were told by the judge not to read newspapers or pay attention to broadcast reports, but no one monitored what the jurors did. Twelve years later, lawyer F. Lee Bailey took Sheppard's trial to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a conviction was overturned on the premise that Sheppard had been a victim of a biased jury. In writing the decision, Justice Tom C. Clark prescribed several remedies. He said that reporters should have been limited to certain areas in the courtroom, that the news media should not have been allowed to interview the witnesses, and that the court should have forbidden statements outside of the courtroom. The outcome of the Sheppard case led to many courtroom experiments with restrictions on the press. The most widespread practices were restraining (gag) orders and closed proceedings. With a gag order, the judge limited what the press could report. But since 1980, several court cases have overturned most of these limitations so that today the press is rarely excluded from courtroom proceedings, and the exclusion lasts only as long as it takes the news organization to appeal to a higher court for access. Cameras in the courtroom is a sticky issue between judges, who want to avoid the disruption that cameras present, and broadcast newspeople, who want to photograph what is going on. In selected cases, however, cameras have been allowed to record complete trials. In 1994, for example, Court TV broadcast the entire trial of O.J. Simpson. Cameras in the courtroom is a state-by-state decision. Some states allow cameras during civil but not criminal trials. Other states try to completely limit access. The U.S. courts and the press are not yet completely comfortable partners. Which of the following is NOT referred to as a possible solution for biased juries?
a. substituting conservative judges for more liberal ones
b. limiting the use of cameras in the courtroom
c. using gag orders
d. closed court proceedings
Ques. 9The best-known decision affecting prejudicial press coverage of criminal cases is Sheppard v. Maxwell. In 1954, Dr. Samuel Sheppard of Cleveland was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering his wife. His conviction followed reams of newspaper stories, many of which proclaimed his guilt before the jury had decided the case. The jurors, who went home each evening, were told by the judge not to read newspapers or pay attention to broadcast reports, but no one monitored what the jurors did. Twelve years later, lawyer F. Lee Bailey took Sheppard's trial to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a conviction was overturned on the premise that Sheppard had been a victim of a biased jury. In writing the decision, Justice Tom C. Clark prescribed several remedies. He said that reporters should have been limited to certain areas in the courtroom, that the news media should not have been allowed to interview the witnesses, and that the court should have forbidden statements outside of the courtroom. The outcome of the Sheppard case led to many courtroom experiments with restrictions on the press. The most widespread practices were restraining (gag) orders and closed proceedings. With a gag order, the judge limited what the press could report. But since 1980, several court cases have overturned most of these limitations so that today the press is rarely excluded from courtroom proceedings, and the exclusion lasts only as long as it takes the news organization to appeal to a higher court for access. Cameras in the courtroom is a sticky issue between judges, who want to avoid the disruption that cameras present, and broadcast newspeople, who want to photograph what is going on. In selected cases, however, cameras have been allowed to record complete trials. In 1994, for example, Court TV broadcast the entire trial of O.J. Simpson. Cameras in the courtroom is a state-by-state decision. Some states allow cameras during civil but not criminal trials. Other states try to completely limit access. The U.S. courts and the press are not yet completely comfortable partners. The O.J. Simpson case was used as an example of
a. a case in which the trial was broadcast on TV.
b. a case in which a gag order was used. c. a case in which no murder weapon was found. d. a case involving a biased jury.
Quick Reply
