Loading question...
You are in free guest mode. Timed Practice Revision List Attempt History Progress Tracking Create a free account to unlock these tools
Prev Next
Practice Reading: Multiple Choice, Multiple Answers ID: #33726 Discrimination
Instructions ›
Read the text and answer the question by selecting all the correct responses. You will need to select more than one response.
Let's talk about the pros and cons of discrimination in the USA. I'm sure you are thinking to yourself why I have included pros and cons in my opening statement. Aren't there only bad things that result in discrimination? Well, the answer in most cases is yes. When we discriminate, a negative outcome usually results. However, let's say you are an employer of a business. And the government has told you that you must hire a certain number of women, or a certain percentage of black and white people. This would restrain you from hiring, promoting, and firing your employees. Ok, let’s take a step back and discuss why in some cases, individual freedom to choose or discriminate who will work for you can be a good thing. During the past forty years, the American government has put rules in place to increase the protection of the environment and groups such as minorities, women workers, and consumers. These new rules have resulted in numerous regulations and new bodies of law, which in some cases have resulted in extreme policies, like the one I described before about an employer not being able to select an employee of his or her choice based on sex or color. As a result, opponents argue that individualism has been lost with these new laws. On the other side of the coin, some antidiscrimination proponents argued against the traditional division of occupational roles between men and women. These arguments led to major legal cases, which in turn led to strong requirements to recruit women for jobs usually held by men such as skilled manual and mechanical work on construction sites. The u s congress also allowed the entry of women into the military academies. In fact, a strong effort was made, particularly during the late nineteen seventies, to not only recruit women into all branches of the armed services, other than those directly involved in combat, but also to train women together with men. Another anti discriminatory example involves the department of justice, which began to change the traditional names of specific jobs from firemen and policemen to fire fighters and police officers, and required local police and fire forces to hire women police officers and firefighters. Discriminatory examinations and tests in both the public and private sectors were soon abolished, and soon every business was told to avoid favoring one sex over another for specific jobs. These new laws resulted in the progress of equality because most open to women, and none were close to people of color.

According to the lecture: what are the main changes since the 1970s?

* Click on the correct answers

Result:

AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Option 1: "Most jobs became open to ethnic groups."

Explanation: The text states that new laws resulted in the progress of equality, indicating that most jobs became accessible to women and people of color. This aligns with the main idea of increased job opportunities for ethnic groups since the 1970s.

Option 2: "The word used to refer to the fireman was changed."

Explanation: The text mentions that the department of justice changed the traditional names of specific jobs from 'firemen' to 'fire fighters.' This reflects a significant change in terminology that promotes inclusivity, supporting the idea that language has evolved since the 1970s.

Option 3: "Women began to be trained together with men in the military."

Explanation: The text explicitly states that there was a strong effort to train women together with men in the military, highlighting a major change in military training practices since the 1970s.

Option 4: "Individualism has been reflected in the hiring process."

Explanation: This option contradicts the text, which argues that individualism has been lost due to new laws restricting employers' choices in hiring. Therefore, this statement does not accurately reflect the changes discussed.

Option 5: "Women were allowed to fight on the battlefield like men did."

Explanation: The text specifies that women were recruited into all branches of the armed services except those directly involved in combat. Thus, this statement is incorrect as it implies women were allowed to fight on the battlefield, which is not supported by the text.

The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.

Sign in to read the full explanation

With a free account: Retry and compare every attempt.
Be the first! No community answers here yet. Submit yours and help others learn.
How difficult was this question?
Others found: 100% Easy · 0% Medium · 0% Hard
Saving...