I understand what you were trying to do here, but the overall experience is a bit like following an Upworthy link: being driven by artificial curiosity to expend my time on something without much payoff.

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.”

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?

I readily thought of three possibilities for consequences of the redefinition —

1. The definition is just used to measure "how many households have access to broadband" for political purposes, for instance in making arguments about inequality. There is no regulatory consequence. It literally is just a rhetorical dispute over definitions, nothing more.

2. Given the redefinition, it becomes false advertising for an ISP to claim that they offer "broadband" when their speeds don't meet the new definition. This imposes costs; at least, ISPs have to change their marketing materials. This effectively rewards ISPs that already meet the new definition at the expense of those who don't.

3. Some sort of funding is at stake.

The article seemed to be about "should legislation requiring internet access at a certain speed to be made more available require a higher speed than it currently does?" Yes, it is true that the means of increasing the speed required would be modifying a legal definition.

However, the debate over "should law X define Y to include Z" always seems to be about "should law X apply to Z" and not "does Z really count as Y", and people saying "Z is/isn't Y" tend to immediately follow that with "if Z is/isn't defined as Y, that would lead to implications." Take, for example, the piracy debate. People counting piracy as theft say things like "if piracy isn't classified as theft, then it won't be prosecuted, which will lead to fewer people spending money on media", and people who say that piracy isn't theft tend to say things like "classifying piracy and peer-to-peer file sharing as theft leads to treating these poor teenagers who just wanted to make CDs for their friends as criminals and sending them to jail".

It looked like a debate over whether legislation should be changed by way of changing a definition, but I wouldn't call noticing that a special rationality skill.

I was going to downvote you for posing a link to an article with an inflammatory headline. Wouldn't say it was a good test for me, since I was prejudiced against the article from the title alone.

I only skimmed the article because it has very little relevance to me. The only reason I skimmed it was because I didn't want to ruin whatever you were trying to do. Which leads me to the next point: It was pretty clearly a test, rather than an actual article you just wanted to share. Even if the article was relevant to my interests (in which case I'd actually read it in full), I would have done so with a lot of extra caution because you clearly had an ulterior motive for posting this.