Kết quả bài thi số 306334

When Malaysia takes the ASEAN chair next year, it will face a huge challenge. Too few of us know enough about this grouping we call the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. We do not know what it means to be a part of ASEAN and why it is important to us. At the same time, pressure is mounting to reinvent ASEAN to make it more people-centric and less government-centric. The Heat speaks to Global Movement of Moderates CEO Saifuddin Abdullah on why ASEAN should mean more to us than just acronyms.

ASEAN people do not feel like they are a part of the community of Southeast Asian nations. This statement, backed up by survey findings, is pretty bizarre, and extremely hurtful too, considering that ASEAN is 47 years old today. "Interview 10 persons on the street and you would perhaps get only one of them who knows about ASEAN,” says Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah. This CEO of Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) is not running down ASEAN; he's confronting the truth as it impacts the project he has been entrusted with. Here's more, in 2012, the ASEAN Secretariat conducted a survey that showed only 34% of Malaysians had heard of the ASEAN community. This compares with 96% of Laotians. Malaysia chairs ASEAN next year, and GMM is a member of the national steering committee organising the ASEAN People's Forum (APF), a platform designed to bridge the gap between governments and civil society. Never heard of it? You're forgiven.

The APF actually started off life in the 1990s, except it was called the ASEAN People's Assembly (APA). It was held back to back with the ASEAN Summit, which is held twice a year. The APA is the forum where 10 leaders of government engage with 10 leaders of civil society in a half-hour meeting. "It was going well until one year when the chairman decided not to hold the APA, so it was discontinued until 2005 when Malaysia took the chairmanship of ASEAN again and founded the ASEAN People's Forum (APF)," Saifuddin explains. In a perfect world, forums such as the APF or its predecessor APA would have worked perfectly to bridge the gap between government and civil society.

However, as Saifuddin points out, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) often do not see eye to eye with their governments. For instance this year, Myanmar is chair of ASEAN and in the APF, three member nations - including Malaysia - decided not to recognise the CSO leaders chosen as representatives so the APF did not take place. “This is where the GMM wants to play a role in ensuring that this situation does not arise again," Saifuddin says.

According to the passage, in 1990s, APF was called ____.

When Malaysia takes the ASEAN chair next year, it will face a huge challenge. Too few of us know enough about this grouping we call the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. We do not know what it means to be a part of ASEAN and why it is important to us. At the same time, pressure is mounting to reinvent ASEAN to make it more people-centric and less government-centric. The Heat speaks to Global Movement of Moderates CEO Saifuddin Abdullah on why ASEAN should mean more to us than just acronyms.

ASEAN people do not feel like they are a part of the community of Southeast Asian nations. This statement, backed up by survey findings, is pretty bizarre, and extremely hurtful too, considering that ASEAN is 47 years old today. "Interview 10 persons on the street and you would perhaps get only one of them who knows about ASEAN,” says Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah. This CEO of Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) is not running down ASEAN; he's confronting the truth as it impacts the project he has been entrusted with. Here's more, in 2012, the ASEAN Secretariat conducted a survey that showed only 34% of Malaysians had heard of the ASEAN community. This compares with 96% of Laotians. Malaysia chairs ASEAN next year, and GMM is a member of the national steering committee organising the ASEAN People's Forum (APF), a platform designed to bridge the gap between governments and civil society. Never heard of it? You're forgiven.

The APF actually started off life in the 1990s, except it was called the ASEAN People's Assembly (APA). It was held back to back with the ASEAN Summit, which is held twice a year. The APA is the forum where 10 leaders of government engage with 10 leaders of civil society in a half-hour meeting. "It was going well until one year when the chairman decided not to hold the APA, so it was discontinued until 2005 when Malaysia took the chairmanship of ASEAN again and founded the ASEAN People's Forum (APF)," Saifuddin explains. In a perfect world, forums such as the APF or its predecessor APA would have worked perfectly to bridge the gap between government and civil society.

However, as Saifuddin points out, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) often do not see eye to eye with their governments. For instance this year, Myanmar is chair of ASEAN and in the APF, three member nations - including Malaysia - decided not to recognise the CSO leaders chosen as representatives so the APF did not take place. “This is where the GMM wants to play a role in ensuring that this situation does not arise again," Saifuddin says.

The word “acronyms” in paragraph 1 probably means ____.

When Malaysia takes the ASEAN chair next year, it will face a huge challenge. Too few of us know enough about this grouping we call the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. We do not know what it means to be a part of ASEAN and why it is important to us. At the same time, pressure is mounting to reinvent ASEAN to make it more people-centric and less government-centric. The Heat speaks to Global Movement of Moderates CEO Saifuddin Abdullah on why ASEAN should mean more to us than just acronyms.

ASEAN people do not feel like they are a part of the community of Southeast Asian nations. This statement, backed up by survey findings, is pretty bizarre, and extremely hurtful too, considering that ASEAN is 47 years old today. "Interview 10 persons on the street and you would perhaps get only one of them who knows about ASEAN,” says Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah. This CEO of Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) is not running down ASEAN; he's confronting the truth as it impacts the project he has been entrusted with. Here's more, in 2012, the ASEAN Secretariat conducted a survey that showed only 34% of Malaysians had heard of the ASEAN community. This compares with 96% of Laotians. Malaysia chairs ASEAN next year, and GMM is a member of the national steering committee organising the ASEAN People's Forum (APF), a platform designed to bridge the gap between governments and civil society. Never heard of it? You're forgiven.

The APF actually started off life in the 1990s, except it was called the ASEAN People's Assembly (APA). It was held back to back with the ASEAN Summit, which is held twice a year. The APA is the forum where 10 leaders of government engage with 10 leaders of civil society in a half-hour meeting. "It was going well until one year when the chairman decided not to hold the APA, so it was discontinued until 2005 when Malaysia took the chairmanship of ASEAN again and founded the ASEAN People's Forum (APF)," Saifuddin explains. In a perfect world, forums such as the APF or its predecessor APA would have worked perfectly to bridge the gap between government and civil society.

However, as Saifuddin points out, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) often do not see eye to eye with their governments. For instance this year, Myanmar is chair of ASEAN and in the APF, three member nations - including Malaysia - decided not to recognise the CSO leaders chosen as representatives so the APF did not take place. “This is where the GMM wants to play a role in ensuring that this situation does not arise again," Saifuddin says.

The phrase "backed up" in paragraph 2 has similar meaning to ____.

When Malaysia takes the ASEAN chair next year, it will face a huge challenge. Too few of us know enough about this grouping we call the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. We do not know what it means to be a part of ASEAN and why it is important to us. At the same time, pressure is mounting to reinvent ASEAN to make it more people-centric and less government-centric. The Heat speaks to Global Movement of Moderates CEO Saifuddin Abdullah on why ASEAN should mean more to us than just acronyms.

ASEAN people do not feel like they are a part of the community of Southeast Asian nations. This statement, backed up by survey findings, is pretty bizarre, and extremely hurtful too, considering that ASEAN is 47 years old today. "Interview 10 persons on the street and you would perhaps get only one of them who knows about ASEAN,” says Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah. This CEO of Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) is not running down ASEAN; he's confronting the truth as it impacts the project he has been entrusted with. Here's more, in 2012, the ASEAN Secretariat conducted a survey that showed only 34% of Malaysians had heard of the ASEAN community. This compares with 96% of Laotians. Malaysia chairs ASEAN next year, and GMM is a member of the national steering committee organising the ASEAN People's Forum (APF), a platform designed to bridge the gap between governments and civil society. Never heard of it? You're forgiven.

The APF actually started off life in the 1990s, except it was called the ASEAN People's Assembly (APA). It was held back to back with the ASEAN Summit, which is held twice a year. The APA is the forum where 10 leaders of government engage with 10 leaders of civil society in a half-hour meeting. "It was going well until one year when the chairman decided not to hold the APA, so it was discontinued until 2005 when Malaysia took the chairmanship of ASEAN again and founded the ASEAN People's Forum (APF)," Saifuddin explains. In a perfect world, forums such as the APF or its predecessor APA would have worked perfectly to bridge the gap between government and civil society.

However, as Saifuddin points out, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) often do not see eye to eye with their governments. For instance this year, Myanmar is chair of ASEAN and in the APF, three member nations - including Malaysia - decided not to recognise the CSO leaders chosen as representatives so the APF did not take place. “This is where the GMM wants to play a role in ensuring that this situation does not arise again," Saifuddin says.

 According to the passage, Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah was CEO of ____.

When Malaysia takes the ASEAN chair next year, it will face a huge challenge. Too few of us know enough about this grouping we call the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. We do not know what it means to be a part of ASEAN and why it is important to us. At the same time, pressure is mounting to reinvent ASEAN to make it more people-centric and less government-centric. The Heat speaks to Global Movement of Moderates CEO Saifuddin Abdullah on why ASEAN should mean more to us than just acronyms.

ASEAN people do not feel like they are a part of the community of Southeast Asian nations. This statement, backed up by survey findings, is pretty bizarre, and extremely hurtful too, considering that ASEAN is 47 years old today. "Interview 10 persons on the street and you would perhaps get only one of them who knows about ASEAN,” says Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah. This CEO of Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) is not running down ASEAN; he's confronting the truth as it impacts the project he has been entrusted with. Here's more, in 2012, the ASEAN Secretariat conducted a survey that showed only 34% of Malaysians had heard of the ASEAN community. This compares with 96% of Laotians. Malaysia chairs ASEAN next year, and GMM is a member of the national steering committee organising the ASEAN People's Forum (APF), a platform designed to bridge the gap between governments and civil society. Never heard of it? You're forgiven.

The APF actually started off life in the 1990s, except it was called the ASEAN People's Assembly (APA). It was held back to back with the ASEAN Summit, which is held twice a year. The APA is the forum where 10 leaders of government engage with 10 leaders of civil society in a half-hour meeting. "It was going well until one year when the chairman decided not to hold the APA, so it was discontinued until 2005 when Malaysia took the chairmanship of ASEAN again and founded the ASEAN People's Forum (APF)," Saifuddin explains. In a perfect world, forums such as the APF or its predecessor APA would have worked perfectly to bridge the gap between government and civil society.

However, as Saifuddin points out, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) often do not see eye to eye with their governments. For instance this year, Myanmar is chair of ASEAN and in the APF, three member nations - including Malaysia - decided not to recognise the CSO leaders chosen as representatives so the APF did not take place. “This is where the GMM wants to play a role in ensuring that this situation does not arise again," Saifuddin says.

The phrase "bridge the gap" in paragraph 3 is closest in meaning to ____.

When Malaysia takes the ASEAN chair next year, it will face a huge challenge. Too few of us know enough about this grouping we call the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. We do not know what it means to be a part of ASEAN and why it is important to us. At the same time, pressure is mounting to reinvent ASEAN to make it more people-centric and less government-centric. The Heat speaks to Global Movement of Moderates CEO Saifuddin Abdullah on why ASEAN should mean more to us than just acronyms.

ASEAN people do not feel like they are a part of the community of Southeast Asian nations. This statement, backed up by survey findings, is pretty bizarre, and extremely hurtful too, considering that ASEAN is 47 years old today. "Interview 10 persons on the street and you would perhaps get only one of them who knows about ASEAN,” says Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah. This CEO of Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) is not running down ASEAN; he's confronting the truth as it impacts the project he has been entrusted with. Here's more, in 2012, the ASEAN Secretariat conducted a survey that showed only 34% of Malaysians had heard of the ASEAN community. This compares with 96% of Laotians. Malaysia chairs ASEAN next year, and GMM is a member of the national steering committee organising the ASEAN People's Forum (APF), a platform designed to bridge the gap between governments and civil society. Never heard of it? You're forgiven.

The APF actually started off life in the 1990s, except it was called the ASEAN People's Assembly (APA). It was held back to back with the ASEAN Summit, which is held twice a year. The APA is the forum where 10 leaders of government engage with 10 leaders of civil society in a half-hour meeting. "It was going well until one year when the chairman decided not to hold the APA, so it was discontinued until 2005 when Malaysia took the chairmanship of ASEAN again and founded the ASEAN People's Forum (APF)," Saifuddin explains. In a perfect world, forums such as the APF or its predecessor APA would have worked perfectly to bridge the gap between government and civil society.

However, as Saifuddin points out, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) often do not see eye to eye with their governments. For instance this year, Myanmar is chair of ASEAN and in the APF, three member nations - including Malaysia - decided not to recognise the CSO leaders chosen as representatives so the APF did not take place. “This is where the GMM wants to play a role in ensuring that this situation does not arise again," Saifuddin says.

Which of the following statements is TRUE according to the passage?

When Malaysia takes the ASEAN chair next year, it will face a huge challenge. Too few of us know enough about this grouping we call the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. We do not know what it means to be a part of ASEAN and why it is important to us. At the same time, pressure is mounting to reinvent ASEAN to make it more people-centric and less government-centric. The Heat speaks to Global Movement of Moderates CEO Saifuddin Abdullah on why ASEAN should mean more to us than just acronyms.

ASEAN people do not feel like they are a part of the community of Southeast Asian nations. This statement, backed up by survey findings, is pretty bizarre, and extremely hurtful too, considering that ASEAN is 47 years old today. "Interview 10 persons on the street and you would perhaps get only one of them who knows about ASEAN,” says Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah. This CEO of Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) is not running down ASEAN; he's confronting the truth as it impacts the project he has been entrusted with. Here's more, in 2012, the ASEAN Secretariat conducted a survey that showed only 34% of Malaysians had heard of the ASEAN community. This compares with 96% of Laotians. Malaysia chairs ASEAN next year, and GMM is a member of the national steering committee organising the ASEAN People's Forum (APF), a platform designed to bridge the gap between governments and civil society. Never heard of it? You're forgiven.

The APF actually started off life in the 1990s, except it was called the ASEAN People's Assembly (APA). It was held back to back with the ASEAN Summit, which is held twice a year. The APA is the forum where 10 leaders of government engage with 10 leaders of civil society in a half-hour meeting. "It was going well until one year when the chairman decided not to hold the APA, so it was discontinued until 2005 when Malaysia took the chairmanship of ASEAN again and founded the ASEAN People's Forum (APF)," Saifuddin explains. In a perfect world, forums such as the APF or its predecessor APA would have worked perfectly to bridge the gap between government and civil society.

However, as Saifuddin points out, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) often do not see eye to eye with their governments. For instance this year, Myanmar is chair of ASEAN and in the APF, three member nations - including Malaysia - decided not to recognise the CSO leaders chosen as representatives so the APF did not take place. “This is where the GMM wants to play a role in ensuring that this situation does not arise again," Saifuddin says.

 Which of the following would serve as the best title for the passage?

When Malaysia takes the ASEAN chair next year, it will face a huge challenge. Too few of us know enough about this grouping we call the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. We do not know what it means to be a part of ASEAN and why it is important to us. At the same time, pressure is mounting to reinvent ASEAN to make it more people-centric and less government-centric. The Heat speaks to Global Movement of Moderates CEO Saifuddin Abdullah on why ASEAN should mean more to us than just acronyms.

ASEAN people do not feel like they are a part of the community of Southeast Asian nations. This statement, backed up by survey findings, is pretty bizarre, and extremely hurtful too, considering that ASEAN is 47 years old today. "Interview 10 persons on the street and you would perhaps get only one of them who knows about ASEAN,” says Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah. This CEO of Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) is not running down ASEAN; he's confronting the truth as it impacts the project he has been entrusted with. Here's more, in 2012, the ASEAN Secretariat conducted a survey that showed only 34% of Malaysians had heard of the ASEAN community. This compares with 96% of Laotians. Malaysia chairs ASEAN next year, and GMM is a member of the national steering committee organising the ASEAN People's Forum (APF), a platform designed to bridge the gap between governments and civil society. Never heard of it? You're forgiven.

The APF actually started off life in the 1990s, except it was called the ASEAN People's Assembly (APA). It was held back to back with the ASEAN Summit, which is held twice a year. The APA is the forum where 10 leaders of government engage with 10 leaders of civil society in a half-hour meeting. "It was going well until one year when the chairman decided not to hold the APA, so it was discontinued until 2005 when Malaysia took the chairmanship of ASEAN again and founded the ASEAN People's Forum (APF)," Saifuddin explains. In a perfect world, forums such as the APF or its predecessor APA would have worked perfectly to bridge the gap between government and civil society.

However, as Saifuddin points out, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) often do not see eye to eye with their governments. For instance this year, Myanmar is chair of ASEAN and in the APF, three member nations - including Malaysia - decided not to recognise the CSO leaders chosen as representatives so the APF did not take place. “This is where the GMM wants to play a role in ensuring that this situation does not arise again," Saifuddin says.

 Which of the following would serve as the best title for the passage?

Cooperation is the common endeavor of two or more people to perform a task or reach a jointly cherished goal. Like competition and conflict, there are different forms of cooperation, based on group organization and attitudes.

In the first form, known as primary cooperation, group and individual fuse. The group contains nearly all of each individual’s life. The rewards of the group’s work are shared with each member. There is an interlocking identity of individual, group and task performed. Means and goals become one, for cooperation itself is valued.

While primary cooperation is most often characteristic of preliterate societies, secondary cooperation is characteristic of many modem societies. In secondary cooperation, individuals devote only part of their lives to the group. Cooperation itself is not a value. Most members of the group feel loyalty, but the welfare of the group is not the first consideration. Members perform tasks so that they can separately enjoy the fruits of their cooperation in the form of salary prestige, or power. Business offices and professional athletic teams are examples of secondary cooperation.

In the third type called tertiary cooperation or accommodation, latent conflict underlies the shared work. The attitudes of the cooperating parties are purely opportunistic: the organization is loose and fragile. Accommodation involves common means to achieve antagonistic goals: it breaks down when the common means cease to aid each party in reaching its goals. This is not, strictly speaking cooperation at all, and hence the somewhat contradictory term antagonistic cooperation is sometimes used for this relationship.

 What is the author’s main purpose in the first paragraph of to passage?

Cooperation is the common endeavor of two or more people to perform a task or reach a jointly cherished goal. Like competition and conflict, there are different forms of cooperation, based on group organization and attitudes.

In the first form, known as primary cooperation, group and individual fuse. The group contains nearly all of each individual’s life. The rewards of the group’s work are shared with each member. There is an interlocking identity of individual, group and task performed. Means and goals become one, for cooperation itself is valued.

While primary cooperation is most often characteristic of preliterate societies, secondary cooperation is characteristic of many modem societies. In secondary cooperation, individuals devote only part of their lives to the group. Cooperation itself is not a value. Most members of the group feel loyalty, but the welfare of the group is not the first consideration. Members perform tasks so that they can separately enjoy the fruits of their cooperation in the form of salary prestige, or power. Business offices and professional athletic teams are examples of secondary cooperation.

In the third type called tertiary cooperation or accommodation, latent conflict underlies the shared work. The attitudes of the cooperating parties are purely opportunistic: the organization is loose and fragile. Accommodation involves common means to achieve antagonistic goals: it breaks down when the common means cease to aid each party in reaching its goals. This is not, strictly speaking cooperation at all, and hence the somewhat contradictory term antagonistic cooperation is sometimes used for this relationship.

The word “cherished” in paragraph 1 is closest in meaning to _______

Cooperation is the common endeavor of two or more people to perform a task or reach a jointly cherished goal. Like competition and conflict, there are different forms of cooperation, based on group organization and attitudes.

In the first form, known as primary cooperation, group and individual fuse. The group contains nearly all of each individual’s life. The rewards of the group’s work are shared with each member. There is an interlocking identity of individual, group and task performed. Means and goals become one, for cooperation itself is valued.

While primary cooperation is most often characteristic of preliterate societies, secondary cooperation is characteristic of many modem societies. In secondary cooperation, individuals devote only part of their lives to the group. Cooperation itself is not a value. Most members of the group feel loyalty, but the welfare of the group is not the first consideration. Members perform tasks so that they can separately enjoy the fruits of their cooperation in the form of salary prestige, or power. Business offices and professional athletic teams are examples of secondary cooperation.

In the third type called tertiary cooperation or accommodation, latent conflict underlies the shared work. The attitudes of the cooperating parties are purely opportunistic: the organization is loose and fragile. Accommodation involves common means to achieve antagonistic goals: it breaks down when the common means cease to aid each party in reaching its goals. This is not, strictly speaking cooperation at all, and hence the somewhat contradictory term antagonistic cooperation is sometimes used for this relationship.

Which of the following statements about primary cooperation is supported by information in the passage?

Cooperation is the common endeavor of two or more people to perform a task or reach a jointly cherished goal. Like competition and conflict, there are different forms of cooperation, based on group organization and attitudes.

In the first form, known as primary cooperation, group and individual fuse. The group contains nearly all of each individual’s life. The rewards of the group’s work are shared with each member. There is an interlocking identity of individual, group and task performed. Means and goals become one, for cooperation itself is valued.

While primary cooperation is most often characteristic of preliterate societies, secondary cooperation is characteristic of many modem societies. In secondary cooperation, individuals devote only part of their lives to the group. Cooperation itself is not a value. Most members of the group feel loyalty, but the welfare of the group is not the first consideration. Members perform tasks so that they can separately enjoy the fruits of their cooperation in the form of salary prestige, or power. Business offices and professional athletic teams are examples of secondary cooperation.

In the third type called tertiary cooperation or accommodation, latent conflict underlies the shared work. The attitudes of the cooperating parties are purely opportunistic: the organization is loose and fragile. Accommodation involves common means to achieve antagonistic goals: it breaks down when the common means cease to aid each party in reaching its goals. This is not, strictly speaking cooperation at all, and hence the somewhat contradictory term antagonistic cooperation is sometimes used for this relationship.

According to the passage, why do people join groups that practice secondary cooperation?

Cooperation is the common endeavor of two or more people to perform a task or reach a jointly cherished goal. Like competition and conflict, there are different forms of cooperation, based on group organization and attitudes.

In the first form, known as primary cooperation, group and individual fuse. The group contains nearly all of each individual’s life. The rewards of the group’s work are shared with each member. There is an interlocking identity of individual, group and task performed. Means and goals become one, for cooperation itself is valued.

While primary cooperation is most often characteristic of preliterate societies, secondary cooperation is characteristic of many modem societies. In secondary cooperation, individuals devote only part of their lives to the group. Cooperation itself is not a value. Most members of the group feel loyalty, but the welfare of the group is not the first consideration. Members perform tasks so that they can separately enjoy the fruits of their cooperation in the form of salary prestige, or power. Business offices and professional athletic teams are examples of secondary cooperation.

In the third type called tertiary cooperation or accommodation, latent conflict underlies the shared work. The attitudes of the cooperating parties are purely opportunistic: the organization is loose and fragile. Accommodation involves common means to achieve antagonistic goals: it breaks down when the common means cease to aid each party in reaching its goals. This is not, strictly speaking cooperation at all, and hence the somewhat contradictory term antagonistic cooperation is sometimes used for this relationship.

Which of the following is an example of the third form of cooperation as it is defined in the fourth paragraph?

Cooperation is the common endeavor of two or more people to perform a task or reach a jointly cherished goal. Like competition and conflict, there are different forms of cooperation, based on group organization and attitudes.

In the first form, known as primary cooperation, group and individual fuse. The group contains nearly all of each individual’s life. The rewards of the group’s work are shared with each member. There is an interlocking identity of individual, group and task performed. Means and goals become one, for cooperation itself is valued.

While primary cooperation is most often characteristic of preliterate societies, secondary cooperation is characteristic of many modem societies. In secondary cooperation, individuals devote only part of their lives to the group. Cooperation itself is not a value. Most members of the group feel loyalty, but the welfare of the group is not the first consideration. Members perform tasks so that they can separately enjoy the fruits of their cooperation in the form of salary prestige, or power. Business offices and professional athletic teams are examples of secondary cooperation.

In the third type called tertiary cooperation or accommodation, latent conflict underlies the shared work. The attitudes of the cooperating parties are purely opportunistic: the organization is loose and fragile. Accommodation involves common means to achieve antagonistic goals: it breaks down when the common means cease to aid each party in reaching its goals. This is not, strictly speaking cooperation at all, and hence the somewhat contradictory term antagonistic cooperation is sometimes used for this relationship.

Which of the following is NOT given as a name for the third type of cooperation?

Cooperation is the common endeavor of two or more people to perform a task or reach a jointly cherished goal. Like competition and conflict, there are different forms of cooperation, based on group organization and attitudes.

In the first form, known as primary cooperation, group and individual fuse. The group contains nearly all of each individual’s life. The rewards of the group’s work are shared with each member. There is an interlocking identity of individual, group and task performed. Means and goals become one, for cooperation itself is valued.

While primary cooperation is most often characteristic of preliterate societies, secondary cooperation is characteristic of many modem societies. In secondary cooperation, individuals devote only part of their lives to the group. Cooperation itself is not a value. Most members of the group feel loyalty, but the welfare of the group is not the first consideration. Members perform tasks so that they can separately enjoy the fruits of their cooperation in the form of salary prestige, or power. Business offices and professional athletic teams are examples of secondary cooperation.

In the third type called tertiary cooperation or accommodation, latent conflict underlies the shared work. The attitudes of the cooperating parties are purely opportunistic: the organization is loose and fragile. Accommodation involves common means to achieve antagonistic goals: it breaks down when the common means cease to aid each party in reaching its goals. This is not, strictly speaking cooperation at all, and hence the somewhat contradictory term antagonistic cooperation is sometimes used for this relationship.

The word “fragile” in paragraph 4 is closest in meaning to