[originaltext] There is no point in looking for a simple definition of “readi

There is no point in looking for a simple definition of “reading”. Reading is not different from all the other common words in our language. (4) It has many meanings, and since the meaning of the word on any particular occasion will depend largely on the context in which it occurs, we should not expect that a single definition for reading will be found. One cannot even ask such a direct question as whether the process of reading necessarily includes comprehension. If we recommend a particular book to a friend, we obviously intend the friend to comprehend it. It would be unnecessary to say we wanted the book to be read and comprehended. But on the other hand it would be quite reasonable for the friend to reply “well, I’ve already read the book but I couldn’t comprehend it”. We could not object that the friend had not read the book just because it was not comprehended. We might suggest reading the book again but not going back to read it for the first time. (5) So the word “reading” may sometimes means “comprehension” and sometimes not, and any dispute about whether reading does or does not necessarily means comprehension is a dispute about language, not about the nature of reading. (6)To avoid endless argument, we should stop looking for definitions of reading and consider instead what is involved in reading. Illustration, description and analysis are after all what we usually want when we ask people to define their terms.
4. Why can’t a simple definition of the word “reading” be found?
5. According to the passage, what isn’t the natural result of reading?
6. What does the author suggest to avoid endless arguments?