Title [GV] ĐỀ 13 - A. ĐỀ THI.docx ✅

4 D. Not only when we are examined about commodified repetition governing listening the familiar labels disclosed their coercive subtext. Question 19. A. If the marketplace privileges modular spectacle – as indeed it did – interpretive agency had been attenuated. B. Were the marketplace to privilege modular spectacle – as indeed it does – interpretive agency would be attenuated. C. Should the marketplace have privileged modular spectacle, as indeed it does, so is interpretive agency attenuated. D. If the marketplace were privileging modular spectacles – as indeed it do – interpretive agency is attenuating. Question 20. A. moreover; for patrons must, by necessity, subsidize scarcity with patience and pedigree B. nevertheless; thus patrons who are, by necessity, subsidizing scarcity with patience and pedigree C. moreover, which is why patrons are who must, by necessity, subsidize scarcity with patience and pedigree D. however, patrons must who are by necessity subsidize scarcity with patience and pedigree Question 21. A. achieving what it had promised only nominal – not emancipatory – senses B. been achieving what it promises merely in nominally, not emancipatory sense C. to have achieved what it promised only in the nominal, not emancipatory senses D. achieved what it promises only in a nominal, not emancipatory, sense Question 22. A. through casebycase judgment – many of which hybridizes – rather than romanticizing either poles B. by judging casebycase, many of which hybridize, rather than romanticizing either pole C. by casebycase judgments, much of them hybridizing, rather than romanticize either pole D. through casebycase judgments – many of which hybridize – rather than romanticizing either pole Read the following passage and mark the letter A, B, C, or D to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions from 23 to 30. Campus speech policies have often been justified as prophylactics against harm: to widen inclusion, administrators narrowed the range of acceptable expression. In some instances, this meant denying microphones to explicit bigotry; in others, the definition of exclusionary rhetoric expanded to positions many citizens hold for nonprejudicial reasons. On certain campuses, merely advocating a policy judged by some to disadvantage a protected group sufficed to trigger disinvitation. Over the past decade, campaigns to sanction academics surged, with watchdog tallies indicating thousands of incidents from both right and left. During this period, conservatives increasingly styled themselves defenders of unfettered speech, while segments of the progressive coalition were candid about curbing expression in the name of inclusion. Yet these alignments have proved unstable. In recent months, wars abroad and protests at home have inverted familiar talking points. Chants once parsed as political opinion are now, by some officials, read as coded bigotry; legislators urge universities to silence such speech so as to protect a historically vulnerable constituency. The dispute thus pivots not on whether to regulate, but on who names harm and who must be shielded. The larger lesson is disquieting: coalitions recalibrate their speech ethics when the expressive costs weigh against their own side. Transparency about these tradeoffs is rare; arguments are framed as absolutes even as they shift with circumstance. The debate, therefore, is not settled but cyclical, returning with each controversy to the same friction between dignity and dissent.