Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
CR The journalistic approach [#permalink]
24 Mar 2008, 14:13
100% (02:19) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
Please don't forget your explanation! Thanks
The journalistic practice of fabricating remarks after an interview and printing them within quotation marks, as if they were the interviewee’s own words, has been decried as a form of unfair misrepresentation. However, people’s actual spoken remarks rarely convey their ideas as clearly as does a distillation of those ideas crafted, after an interview, by a skilled writer. Therefore, since this practice avoids the more serious misrepresentation that would occur if people’s exact words were quoted but their ideas only partially expressed, it is entirely defensible. Which one of the following is a questionable technique used in the argument? (A) answering an exaggerated charge by undermining the personal authority of those who made that charge (B) claiming that the prestige of a profession provides ample grounds for dismissing criticisms of that profession (C) offering as an adequate defense of a practice an observation that discredits only one of several possible alternatives to that practice (D) concluding that a practice is right on the grounds that it is necessary (E) using the opponent’s admission that a practice is sometimes appropriate as conclusive proof that that practice is never inappropriate
Re: CR The journalistic approach [#permalink]
25 Mar 2008, 00:29
This post received KUDOS
C-is my choice Practice = crafting others' remarks by journalists Conclusion= this practice is "entirely defensible". Evidence= distillation avoids misrepresentation Author of the argument defends the practice, assuming only above evidence is enough. But maybe this is not enough to defend this practice. What if journalists intentionally represent/quote ideas/remarks that interviewee didn't mean, making Now interviewee responsible for what he didn't say. So defending the practice in light of 1 alternative is flawed.
Re: CR The journalistic approach
25 Mar 2008, 00:29