The public’s ability to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources of information is getting worse. Young adults in early twenties, just having completed their formal education, are more likely to be media illiterate than somewhat older adults. And yet, political actors will increasingly make use of biased media outlets to sway elections in their favor.
Which of the following conclusions can be properly drawn from the statements above?
A. It should be suggested that voters attend media literacy courses in order to acquire a minimal competency in interpreting public information.
Out of scope and too specific to media literacy courses. Statement dealing with more generic idea of educating young voters.
B. Instruction in how to evaluate the veracity of an information source should be made a required part of the educational curriculum, both public and private.
Same as option A, this is too specific solution and hence out of scope.
C. If all young people are to make informed voting decisions, many of them must learn how to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources of information.
Correct answer. Young voters must learn to differentiate b/w reliable and unreliable sources of information. This is directly addressing the concern in the passage, esp. "differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources of information" part.
D. If young people are not to be influenced by propagandists, they must increase their understanding of journalism.
out of scope, journalism is very specific and wider in scope. It could mean learning many other things than just ability to differentiate b/w reliable and unreliable sources of information.
E. When researching political candidates, young people tend to confuse reasonably accurate reporting with unrealistic ideals.
This was a tempting neutral kind of an option about what the statement is saying, for me. But then the language used esp. "researching political candidates" does not align with what the statement is saying. Statement just says public's ability is getting worse in general regarding public information, not when doing research about political candidates.