Questions 11 to 18 are based on the conversation you have just heard.

On May 29, 1973, Thomas Bradley, a black man, was elected mayor of Los Angeles. Los Angeles is the third largest city in the United States, with a population of three million. About sixteen percent of the city’s population are black.

News of this election appeared on the front pages of newspapers everywhere in the United States. Here is how one major newspaper reported the event.

LOS ANGELES ELECTS BRADLEY MAYOR UNSEATING YORTYBLACK WINS 56 OF VOTES

Bradley called his victory over Yorty "the fulfillment of a dream". During his childhood and youth, people had kept telling him, "You can’t do this, you can’t go there, because you are a Negro. " Nevertheless he had won a decisive victory over a man who had been won 43.7 percent.

Los Angeles voters have had many opportunities to judge. Thomas Bradley had to form an opinion of him. The son of a poor farmer Texas, he joined the Los Angeles police force in 1940. During his twenty-one years on the police force he earned a law degree by attending school at night. He was elected to the city council ten years ago.

At the time of the Los Angeles election, three other American cities already had black mayors, but none of those cities had as large a population as Los Angeles. Besides, the percentage of blacks in those other cities was much larger. Cleveland, Ohio, had thirty-six percent black when Carl Stokes was elected mayor of Cleveland in 1967. In the same year Richard Hatcher was elected mayor of Cary. In Newark, New Jersey, sixty percent of the population were black when Kenneth Gibson was elected in 1970. Thus election of a black mayor in those cities was not very surprising.

In Los Angeles thousands of white citizens voted for Thomas Bradley because they believed he would be a better mayor than the white candidate. Bradley had spent forty-eight of his fifty- five years in Los Angeles. Four years ago Bradley lost mayoral election to Yorty. This time Bradley won.

In the seventeenth century, European soldiers who came across some Indian groups in the western Great Lakes found that several native tribes were living in the area without a formal leadership system. They appeared to be "quite friendly with each other without a formal authority"!

Not only did the Indians appear to lack a formal system of authority, but they also deeply hated any efforts to control their actions. All members of the tribes knew what was required of them by life long familiarity with the tasks of the area. These tasks tended to be simple, since the Indian’s rate of social change was slow. Thus, although subgroups such as soldiers had recognized leaders, no real authority was required. Rather than giving direct orders (which were considered rough), members of the tribes would arouse others to action by examples.

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to carry out such a system in our own society. Most of us have grown up under one authority or another for as we can remember. Our parents, our teachers, our bosses, our government all have the recognized right under certain conditions to tell us what to do. The authority is so much a part of our culture that it is hard for us to imagine a workable society without it. We have been used to relying on authority to get things done and would probably be uncomfortable with the Indian methods of examples on a large scale.

Of course, the major reason why the Indian system would not be suitable for us is that our society is too large. The number of tasks that various members of our society have to perform often under tight time and resource limitations could not be treated by the Indian system. In modern societies, the formal authority system is necessary to achieve any social objectives.

It aims to verify students’ technical skills.

It is expected to assist students in handling problems in reality.

It aims at overwhelming LSAT and CPA.

It aims to substitute liberal-arts course in independent colleges.