Suspicious as they are of American intentions, and bolstered by court

'statements would the author most likely agree' = statement that is supported by the author.

The last line of the passage - "The media must be held accountable for their activities, just like every other significant institution in our society, and the media must be forced to earn the public‘s trust." suggests that author supports that media should be accountable.

If option E were to be true, it would mean that author supports the notion that the media is not accountable to the public. E is opposite of what the author supports.

A, on the other hand is what the author believes as per the passage.
_________________

Hi,
What you understood would be correct if the option E were - " The media is not accountable to the public currently"
Read the option as a general claim by the author. Isn't it now logically wrong without the word - 'currently' ?

Consider the following excerpt from the passage-
"It is vitally important for the leaders of the United States to know the real state of affairs internationally, and this can occur only if foreign leaders feel free to speak their minds to our diplomats. "

If the media and eventually the public is fed with wrong information , for instance, about a meeting with the secretary, the foreign leaders would not have to fear the leakage of information and would then be able to speak their minds with the diplomats for greater good of the country. Thus, feeding the public misinformation is warranted in certain situations

Hope the things are clear now.
_________________

Can anybody tell me Why the answer to Q1 is A and not E?

Thanks for the explanation.
But I didn't understand that If the author is saying that The media must be held accountable for their activities........
This means that presently media is not accountable. Please correct me on my reasoning.

Secondly, can you give me the reasoning behind option A?

Can someone explain the answer of the 4th question?

As per below excerpt from the passage,
Until recently, it looked as if the media had convinced the public that journalists were more reliable than the government;
-which means that public always thought that the government (official) was not reliable (again it does not mean that the official was always wrong).
Hence, A and D are eliminated.
Further,
However, this may be changing. With the passage of time, the media have lost lustre. They—having grown large and powerful—provoke the same public skepticism that other large institutions in the society do. A series of media scandals has contributed to this. Many Americans have concluded that the media are no more credible than the government, and public opinion surveys reflect much ambivalence about the press.
- Which means that now the public can’t even trust media blindfolded (again this does not mean that the media is always wrong).
Hence, B is eliminated and the answer choice is C.
E is out of scope.
Hope this clarifies your doubt.

Can someone please explain why D is wrong in question 4?

Hi,
For option D, as you have stated, public always thought that the govt. was not reliable and with the passage of time, media lost its credibility as well. So, in nutshell in public's view both may be wrong at times. Agreed that officials are not always wrong but can be at times right?

Hi notYet. Thanks for the question. I’ll try to explain what I understood from the passage. The tone of this passage is opinionated. The author takes the side of governmental officials or leaders and criticizes media throughout the passage.
In this context, now if you read the question again, it asks what the public would assume when the media now (after the public’s opinion of media’s credibility has changed) challenges the action of a public official?
Obviously, the answer is that the media may be wrong.
Perhaps, had the author’s tone been neutral, answer D would be correct answer.
I hope this helps. Do let me know.

Hi notYet. Thanks for the question. I’ll try to explain what I understood from the passage. The tone of this passage is opinionated. The author takes the side of governmental officials or leaders and criticizes media throughout the passage.
In this context, now if you read the question again, it asks what the public would assume when the media now (after the public’s opinion of media’s credibility has changed) [b]challenges the action of a public official?
Obviously, the answer is that the media may be wrong.
Perhaps, had the author’s tone been neutral, answer D would be correct answer.
I hope this helps. Do let me know.


Hi Varsha,
Thanks for the response, the way I see it - though the author's tone is opinionated, I don't think he/she is taking the govt. official's side. The author do criticise the media though. Also, I do get your point to choose the answer after the line of credibility is drawn, may be I am assuming that, though the credibility of media in public's view has changed, nothing has been mentioned thereafter about the officials credibility. Am I correct, or am I still missing something?

Thanks again

Hi notYet.
1.
Suspicious as they are of American intentions, and bolstered by court rulings that seem to give them license to seek out and publish any and all government secrets, the media‘s distrust of our government, combined with their limited understanding of the world at large, damages our ability to design and conduct good policy in ways that the media rarely imagine.
This is where I thought the author is taking side of Govt. official. Do let me know if I am making a mistake.
2.
The media may be wrong (and the official may be right or wrong- we don't know).
Hi arabella,
Would you please post OE?

Hi Varsha,

This is how I thought - Media suspicious about American intentions, have rights to publish what it wants, it distrust the govt. and has limited understanding -> damages design of good policy.The way I see it is - negative towards media, hampering good governance but I don't see it as taking a side of the government. You can think of it as - there are two parties in discussion and we are a third group, If we are unhappy with one of the groups, does that mean we support the second group?

Again, this is my personal opinion, may be wrong and hence was confused with this specific question. Please let me know,if any issues with my reasoning !!

Happy Weekend.

Can anyone explain answers for Q1 and Q2?

Topic & Scope

- The author discusses the negative effects that media ―leaks‖ have on foreign policy and the media‘s credibility.

Mapping the Passage

¶1 argues that the media‘s suspicion of government and lack of knowledge about the world harm government policy.
¶s2 and 3 introduce the concept of the ―leak‖ and explain why it‘s bad for foreign
policy.
¶4 states that the media was trusted by the public until recently, but are now met with skepticism.
¶5 argues that leaks are usually part of a power grab and that the media is a pawn in the game.
_________________

Answers and Explanations OE

1)

Review the author‘s main arguments before looking for an answer choice that he‘s agree with.
(A) recalls the author‘s point in ¶2: ―Leaders often say one thing in public and something quite different in public conversation...‖ The author explains why this occurs—fear of media leaks—and clearly opposes such leaks. Therefore, the author must agree with (A)‘s contention that misinformation is sometimes warranted.
(A): The Correct Answer
(B): Opposite. This is the opposite of (A); for the same reasons that (A) is a valid inference, (B) isn‘t.
(C): Opposite. The author argues in ¶3 that policy benefits from a ―richness and variety of ideas.‖
(D): Opposite. The author‘s point in decrying leaks is that privacy is a necessary component of leadership.
(E): Opposite

2)

This question requires students to find the assumption in the lines mentioned. Review the author‘s argument in ¶2 that leaks harm discussions with foreign leaders. What is the author assuming in this argument? The author argues that foreign leaders don‘t want their private thoughts to be made public; he must also therefore assume that leaders have some sort of reason for not wanting their viewsto be made public. (D) provides a possible reason. If unclear, use the denial test: if leaders didn‘t have this fear, what would be their motivation for hiding their personal views?
(A): Distortion. The author dislikes leaks, but never argues that they‘re immoral. This is extreme.
(B): Distortion. There‘s no evidence that leaks have occurred throughout history.
(C): Out of Scope. The author never suggests that there were no barriers to discussion before the press, only that there are far more barriers now that the press is in the habit of leaking these discussions.
(D): The Correct Answer
(E): This is not an assumption but rather the conclusion. The idea is to keep the media in the dark so that the public stays in the dark and hence the assumption has to be that the leaders are afraid that the public would react negatively if their views were to be revealed to it

3)

C is the most consistent with our passage summary above.
(A): Extreme. The author never says this in the passage
(B): This is a detail mentioned in the passage but not the purpose of the entire passage
(C): The correct answer
(D): the author doesn‘t really criticise the politicians, rather he blames the media for this state of affairs
(E): the author only says that the media needs to be accountable but he never suggests anything about ‗strong and effective‘ regulation

4)

Go back to ¶4 to review what the public thinks of the media. The author argues that the public is equally skeptical of media and government, saying that in the past, the public always assumed the media was right when it challenged the government, but that ―this may be changing.‖ Therefore, the public might now consider the possibility that the media, rather than the government, is wrong. While the wrong answer choices distort this, (E) rewards careful and methodical thought.
(A): Distortion. The author argued that the public generally thought this in the past, but that it‘s not necessarily the case anymore.
(B): Extreme. The author suggests that the public might believe that the media is wrong, but never says that the media‘s always considered wrong in a showdown with government.
(C): The Correct Answer
(D): Distortion. The author never suggests that both may be wrong; the conflict is presented in either/or terms.
(E): There‘s nothing in the passage to suggest that the public ignores anything
_________________

9 MINS 13 SEC. Looking forward to reduce my reading time. Can anyone provide some tips?

Q1. I agree teh author's view is negative towards media's role. But in Option A it tells "Feeding the public misinformation is warranted in certain situations.". Isn't it far stretched than mentioned in the passage?
Please suggest.

Regards,
Arup

Yeah this seems far fetched, can someone enlighten us?

Hi mrcentauri, ArupRS,

We could say that option A is a little difficult to infer, since its not explicitly mentioned in the passage and we have to thoroughly understand what the author is trying to convey. What could help you figure it out are the lines: "The fear that anything they say, even in what is construed as a private forum, may appear in print, makes many people, whether our own government officials or the leaders of foreign countries, unwilling to speak their minds.", implying that if sometimes some important information is withheld from the public, it might not be such a bad thing, as then the leaders would be able to express themselves freely, without the fear of what people might make of it.

Another thing that could help you is using the elimination technique. If at all, option A cannot be inferred straight away, we can easily eliminate the other options as they are clearly mentioned as points of criticism by the author.


Let me know if this helps.
Thanks.