GMAT GMAT SECTION 3: VERBAL ABILITY Exam (page: 14)
GMAT Section 3: Verbal Ability
Updated on: 09-Feb-2026

Men are primarily and secondarily socialized into believing certain characteristics are definitive in determining their masculinity. These characteristics range from playing violently to not crying when they are injured. The socialization of masculinity in our society begins as early as the first stages of infancy, with awareness of adult gender role differences being internalized by children as young as two years old.
Studies show that advertising imagery equates masculinity with violence by portraying the trait of aggression as instrumental to establishing their masculinity. Lee Bowker, who researched the influence of advertisements on youth, asserts that toy advertisements featuring only boys depict aggressive behavior and that the aggressive behavior produces positive consequences more often than negative.

Bowker also looked at commercials with boys that contain references to domination. His results indicated that 68.6% of the commercials positioned toward boys contain incidents of verbal and physical aggression.
However, there were no cross gender displays of aggressive behavior. Interestingly, not one single-sex commercial featuring girls showed any act of aggression. Bowker’s research helps explain that it is not just the reinforcement of a child’s close caretakers that lends legitimacy to aggressive masculine tendencies but society as a whole, using the medium of television.
William Pollack, a Harvard clinical psychologist, talks about how males have been put in a "gender straightjacket" that leads to anger, despair and often violence. Pollack states that society asks men to put a whole range of feelings and emotions behind a mask and shames them if they display any emotion. Pollack contends that boys are ‘shame phobic’, even killing, in extreme cases, to avoid dishonor. It appears that the standard defined by society allows men to express their emotion only through anger. Ironically, though these rigid stereotypes of what it means to be a man have been inculcated from an early age, men are often criticized for being one-dimensional in their behavior and emotions.
Women often verbalize a desire for males to be sensitive and express their emotions. But male insensitivity is the culmination of a societal indoctrination begun at birth. Realistically, men are in a damned if they do, damned if they don’t situation. If they fail to show their emotions, they are berated for being detached from the essence of what constitutes a human being. On the other hand, if a male decides to expose his emotions, he is often branded effeminate and regarded as inferior to other males who stick closer to their gender’s traditional doctrine.

According to the passage, the television commercials examined by Bowker

Men are primarily and secondarily socialized into believing certain characteristics are definitive in determining their masculinity. These characteristics range from playing violently to not crying when they are injured. The socialization of masculinity in our society begins as early as the first stages of infancy, with awareness of adult gender role differences being internalized by children as young as two years old.
Studies show that advertising imagery equates masculinity with violence by portraying the trait of aggression as instrumental to establishing their masculinity. Lee Bowker, who researched the influence of advertisements on youth, asserts that toy advertisements featuring only boys depict aggressive behavior and that the aggressive behavior produces positive consequences more often than negative.
Bowker also looked at commercials with boys that contain references to domination. His results indicated that 68.6% of the commercials positioned toward boys contain incidents of verbal and physical aggression.
However, there were no cross gender displays of aggressive behavior. Interestingly, not one single-sex commercial featuring girls showed any act of aggression. Bowker’s research helps explain that it is not just the reinforcement of a child’s close caretakers that lends legitimacy to aggressive masculine tendencies but society as a whole, using the medium of television.
William Pollack, a Harvard clinical psychologist, talks about how males have been put in a "gender straightjacket" that leads to anger, despair and often violence. Pollack states that society asks men to put a whole range of feelings and emotions behind a mask and shames them if they display any emotion. Pollack contends that boys are ‘shame phobic’, even killing, in extreme cases, to avoid dishonor. It appears that the standard defined by society allows men to express their emotion only through anger. Ironically, though these rigid stereotypes of what it means to be a man have been inculcated from an early age, men are often criticized for being one-dimensional in their behavior and emotions.
Women often verbalize a desire for males to be sensitive and express their emotions. But male insensitivity is the culmination of a societal indoctrination begun at birth. Realistically, men are in a damned if they do, damned if they don’t situation. If they fail to show their emotions, they are berated for being detached from the essence of what constitutes a human being. On the other hand, if a male decides to expose his emotions, he is often branded effeminate and regarded as inferior to other males who stick closer to their gender’s traditional doctrine.

According to Pollack, one of the reasons for male violence is that

Men are primarily and secondarily socialized into believing certain characteristics are definitive in determining their masculinity. These characteristics range from playing violently to not crying when they are injured. The socialization of masculinity in our society begins as early as the first stages of infancy, with awareness of adult gender role differences being internalized by children as young as two years old.
Studies show that advertising imagery equates masculinity with violence by portraying the trait of aggression as instrumental to establishing their masculinity. Lee Bowker, who researched the influence of advertisements on youth, asserts that toy advertisements featuring only boys depict aggressive behavior and that the aggressive behavior produces positive consequences more often than negative.
Bowker also looked at commercials with boys that contain references to domination. His results indicated that 68.6% of the commercials positioned toward boys contain incidents of verbal and physical aggression.
However, there were no cross gender displays of aggressive behavior. Interestingly, not one single-sex commercial featuring girls showed any act of aggression. Bowker’s research helps explain that it is not just the reinforcement of a child’s close caretakers that lends legitimacy to aggressive masculine tendencies but society as a whole, using the medium of television.
William Pollack, a Harvard clinical psychologist, talks about how males have been put in a "gender straightjacket" that leads to anger, despair and often violence. Pollack states that society asks men to put a whole range of feelings and emotions behind a mask and shames them if they display any emotion. Pollack contends that boys are ‘shame phobic’, even killing, in extreme cases, to avoid dishonor. It appears that the standard defined by society allows men to express their emotion only through anger. Ironically, though these rigid stereotypes of what it means to be a man have been inculcated from an early age, men are often criticized for being one-dimensional in their behavior and emotions.
Women often verbalize a desire for males to be sensitive and express their emotions. But male insensitivity is the culmination of a societal indoctrination begun at birth. Realistically, men are in a damned if they do, damned if they don’t situation. If they fail to show their emotions, they are berated for being detached from the essence of what constitutes a human being. On the other hand, if a male decides to expose his emotions, he is often branded effeminate and regarded as inferior to other males who stick closer to their gender’s traditional doctrine.

The passage suggests that, when compared with television advertisement featuring boys, advertisements that had only girls were found

Juror anonymity was unknown to American common law and jurisprudence in the country’s first two centuries. Anonymity was first employed in federal prosecutions of organized crime in New York in the 1980's. Although anonymous juries are unusual since they are typically only empanelled in organized-crime cases, its use has spread more recently to widely publicized cases, such as the federal prosecution of police officers accused of beating Rodney King and the trial of those accused of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In these cases, attorneys selected a jury from a panel of prospective jurors whose names, addresses, ethnic backgrounds and religious affiliations remained unknown to either side. This unorthodox procedure, designed to protect jurors from outside influence and the fear of retaliation, has occasionally been employed in New York federal courts since the trial of drug kingpin Leroy "Nicky" Barnes. Despite apparent benefits, critics assail anonymous juries on the grounds that they are an infringement of the sixth amendment guarantee of an impartial jury and because they present a serious and unnecessary erosion of the presumption of innocence. Since many attorneys believe trials are frequently won or lost during jury selection, any procedure diminishing the role of counsel in the procedure necessitates close scrutiny and criticism. Opponents of anonymous juries argue that the procedure restricts meaningful voir dire, (questioning of the jury panel), and thereby undermines the defendant's sixth amendment right to an impartial jury. Critics also claim that jurors interpret their anonymity as proof of the defendant's criminal proclivity, thereby subverting the presumption of innocence.
However, consistent with due process and the sixth amendment, the trial judge may refuse to ask prospective jurors any questions not reasonably calculated to expose biases or prejudices relevant to the case. Although addresses and group affiliations may indicate significant potential for bias, attorneys do not have an unfettered right to this information in every circumstance. Denying access to these facts may indeed constrain an attorney's ability to assemble an ideal jury, but it violates no constitutional right

The primary purpose of the passage is to

Juror anonymity was unknown to American common law and jurisprudence in the country’s first two centuries. Anonymity was first employed in federal prosecutions of organized crime in New York in the 1980's. Although anonymous juries are unusual since they are typically only empanelled in organized-crime cases, its use has spread more recently to widely publicized cases, such as the federal prosecution of police officers accused of beating Rodney King and the trial of those accused of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In these cases, attorneys selected a jury from a panel of prospective jurors whose names, addresses, ethnic backgrounds and religious affiliations remained unknown to either side. This unorthodox procedure, designed to protect jurors from outside influence and the fear of retaliation, has occasionally been employed in New York federal courts since the trial of drug kingpin Leroy "Nicky" Barnes. Despite apparent benefits, critics assail anonymous juries on the grounds that they are an infringement of the sixth amendment guarantee of an impartial jury and because they present a serious and unnecessary erosion of the presumption of innocence. Since many attorneys believe trials are frequently won or lost during jury selection, any procedure diminishing the role of counsel in the procedure necessitates close scrutiny and criticism. Opponents of anonymous juries argue that the procedure restricts meaningful voir dire, (questioning of the jury panel), and thereby undermines the defendant's sixth amendment right to an impartial jury. Critics also claim that jurors interpret their anonymity as proof of the defendant's criminal proclivity, thereby subverting the presumption of innocence.
However, consistent with due process and the sixth amendment, the trial judge may refuse to ask prospective jurors any questions not reasonably calculated to expose biases or prejudices relevant to the case. Although addresses and group affiliations may indicate significant potential for bias, attorneys do not have an unfettered right to this information in every circumstance. Denying access to these facts may indeed constrain an attorney's ability to assemble an ideal jury, but it violates no constitutional right

It can be inferred from the passage that a jurors ethnic background and religious affiliation