Paretan newspaper editor: David Salino assails as distorted our quotat

Question

Paretan newspaper editor: David Salino assails as distorted our quotation of remarks on Paretan values by the Qinkoan prime minister and bemoans what he sees as the likely consequences for Paretan-Qinkoan relations. Those consequences will not be our fault, however, since officials at the Qinkoan embassy and scholars at the Institute of Qinkoan Studies have all confirmed that, as printed, our quotation was an acceptable translation of the prime minister’s remarks. No newspaper can fairly be blamed for the consequences of its reporting when that reporting is accurate.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion in the editor’s response to David Salino?

(A) What the prime minister said about Paretan values is not a distortion.

(B) Assessing the likely consequences of reporting the prime minister’s remarks is irrelevant to the question of whether they ought to have been reported.

(C) The newspaper’s rendering of the prime minister’s remarks was not inaccurate reporting according to the authorities who are in the best position to judge.

(D) The newspaper cannot be held responsible for the adverse consequences that David Salino claims will likely result from the quotation of the prime minister’s remarks in the newspaper.

(E) David Salino’s assessment of the likely consequences of reporting the prime minister’s remarks is inaccurate.

kungfury42 · Accepted Answer

Let's understand the sequence of events here

1. The Qinkoan prime minister made certain remarks

2. The Paretan newspaper editor quoted a translated version of those remarks

3. David Salino believes that the translation is a distortion and will hurt the Paretan-Qinkoan relations.

4. The newspaper editor defends his action by stating that the translation has been labelled as acceptable by 2 significant authorities and thus the newspaper cannot be held responsible for any consequences, since its reporting was accurate.

We have to determine the conclusion of the editor's response to David Salino. Essentially we're looking for any statement that closely matches with statement 4 above.

A: This is a very illogical statement. What the Prime Minister said about Paretan values can never be a distortion, however, it is its translation that can possibly be a distortion. How can someone's original statement be a distortion in and of itself? What is it a distortion of in the first place?

B: There is no question about whether the remarks should've been reported. Assessing the nature of consequences is not in the scope of the argument either. The scope of the argument deals with the "translation of the remarks" and "whether the editor should be held responsible for any consequences that might result in future"

C: Did two separate authorities claim the newspaper editor's translation as ACCEPTABLE? Yes. Are they significant authorities? Yes. Are they in the BEST position to judge? Who are we to decide on that? Did they claim the translation as "not inaccurate"? Nope. They claimed the translation as "acceptable". Do "not inaccurate" and "acceptable" mean the same thing? I don't think so. Acceptability is a subjective question while Accuracy is objective. I might be accurate and not acceptable and I might be not accurate and yet acceptable. You see what's happening here?

D: Precisely what we wanted. Closely resembles our breakdown of the stem in analysis above (refer statement 4)

E: The newspaper's editor is simply not concerned whether David Salino's claims about the possibility of consequences are accurate. He simply doesn't want to be held responsible for doing his job honestly, and that's pretty reasonable.

Posted from my mobile device

desertEagle · Answer

Argument
Pareto has made a concerted attack on the newspaper saying that the newspaper has put forward a distorted translation and it may lead to bad consequences for Paretan-Qinkoan relations.
The editor says, that Qinkoan embassy and IQS has termed the translation accurate. So newspaper is not responsible for the consequences

Question Type
Find the conclusion of editor

(A) What the prime minister said about Paretan values is not a distortion. -->  This statement itself is a distortion. Editor claims he has not distorted and so newspaper is not responsible --> Reverse Logic --> Incorrect

(B) Assessing the likely consequences of reporting the prime minister’s remarks is irrelevant to the question of whether they ought to have been reported . --> Reporting is not issue. Accurate reporting is. --> Incorrect

(C) The newspaper’s rendering of the prime minister’s remarks was not inaccurate reporting according to the authorities who are in the best position to judge -->  Who is best to judge is not stated. Also it is only half of the argument. The bit about consequences is missing --> Incorrect.

(D) The newspaper cannot be held responsible for the adverse consequences that David Salino claims will likely result from the quotation of the prime minister’s remarks in the newspaper. -->  This is what is stated --> CORRECT

(E) David Salino’s assessment of the likely consequences of reporting the prime minister’s remarks is inaccurate. -->  Out of Scoope --> Incorrect

TarunKumar1234 · Answer

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion in the editor’s response to David Salino?

(A) What the prime minister said about Paretan values is not a distortion. -> How can we say that prime minister shared distorted information or not. Irrelevant.

(B) Assessing the likely consequences of reporting the prime minister’s remarks is irrelevant to the question of whether they ought to have been reported. -> assessing the consequences is not our conclusion. Incorrect.

(C) The newspaper’s rendering of the prime minister’s remarks was not inaccurate reporting according to the authorities who are in the best position to judge. -> From the last sentence, we know information was reported accurately. Incorrect.

(D) The newspaper cannot be held responsible for the adverse consequences that David Salino claims will likely result from the quotation of the prime minister’s remarks in the newspaper. -> This makes sense. Newspaper quoted accurately, so it shouldn't held responsible. Let's keep it.

(E) David Salino’s assessment of the likely consequences of reporting the prime minister’s remarks is inaccurate. -> Irrelevant, we cannot conclude it.

So, I think D.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Paretan newspaper editor: David Salino assails as distorted our quotat

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Paretan newspaper editor: David Salino assails as distorted our quotat

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards