PT108.S3.Q1 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16

PASSAGE 3

Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The author concludes that we need a trained editor to look over journalists’ work to detect and remove their biases, for the purpose of making reporting as objective as possible.

Why?

Because it is inevitable that journalists’ own biases will enter their reporting, even if the journalists try to be objective.

Here are a few assumptions in the argument:

The author assumes that there’s no other way of detecting and removing biases from journalists’ work besides having a trained editor review the work.

The author assumes that a trained editor will be able to detect and remove the biases in journalists’ work.

The author assumes that objective reporting is a desirable goal.

Necessary, because if it were not true — if journalists DO eliminate all of the biases that enter their reporting — then there’s no need to have a trained editor review the work.

Necessary, because if it were not true — if it were NOT imperative (necessary) that reporting be as objective as possible — then it’s not imperative that we remove biases, and so we don’t need to have trained editors review journalists’ work.

Necessary, because if it were not true — if objectivity in reporting is NOT undermined by the presence of biases — then we don’t need to remove biases in order to make reporting objective. So if our goal is objective reporting, we don’t need to have a trained editor try to remove biases.

Necessary, because if it were not true — if trained editors are able to detect NONE of the biases of journalists — then having trained editors review for bias will not make reporting as objective as possible. It would not be imperative to use trained editors for review if they are unable to do what we want them to do.

Not necessary, because whether reporting is “taken seriously” is irrelevant to the reasoning of the argument. The argument is concerned with whether trained editors can remove biases from journalists’ work; we have no reason to think that whether the work is taken seriously has any affect on the ability to identify and remove biases.

PrepTest 108 - Section 3 - Question 1

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action