I really like this idea, but I can’t tell whether I failed the test, I passed the test, or the article-selection for this test was bad.
I very much felt the “condemnation of the hated telecoms” (and a bit of victory-hope). I think this means I’ve failed the test.
It took no time to realize that I was reading a debate over a definition and its purpose. I think this means I’ve passed the test.
I feel like the above realization was trivial. I didn’t consciously think “I am reading a debate of definition. ” In the same way that, when I’m playing a scary game, I don’t think “I am playing a scary game.” I thought the whole point of the article was to emphasize a debate of definition, why said debate is happening, and what side “won”. I think this means that the article was a bad one for the purposes of this test (that is: using this article feels more like a test of reading comprehension than rationality).
Which is the most appropriate result?
(To reiterate, though, I think this idea is an awesome one.)
Edit: I also don’t think the article failed to give information on what the reason behind said definition-changing was:
The FCC was having this debate because Congress requires it to determine whether broadband is being deployed to Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. The first step is determining what speeds allow for broadband access. Congress made it clear in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that broadband isn’t the bare minimum needed to use the Internet. Instead, it is “advanced telecommunications capability” that “enable[s] users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.”
I really like this idea, but I can’t tell whether I failed the test, I passed the test, or the article-selection for this test was bad.
I very much felt the “condemnation of the hated telecoms” (and a bit of victory-hope). I think this means I’ve failed the test.
It took no time to realize that I was reading a debate over a definition and its purpose. I think this means I’ve passed the test.
I feel like the above realization was trivial. I didn’t consciously think “I am reading a debate of definition. ” In the same way that, when I’m playing a scary game, I don’t think “I am playing a scary game.” I thought the whole point of the article was to emphasize a debate of definition, why said debate is happening, and what side “won”. I think this means that the article was a bad one for the purposes of this test (that is: using this article feels more like a test of reading comprehension than rationality).
Which is the most appropriate result?
(To reiterate, though, I think this idea is an awesome one.)
Edit: I also don’t think the article failed to give information on what the reason behind said definition-changing was:
Edit 2: Now THIS article doesn’t emphasize the point that it’s purely a matter of definition: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/tons-of-att-and-verizon-customers-may-no-longer-have-broadband-tomorrow/ The article in the OP feels like “We’ve changed the definition of broadband to increase broadband access.” The above-linked article feels like “THEY’RE TAKING AWAY OUR BROADBAND!!!” Does this seem like a reasonable differentiation, or am I being biased?