Self-study
Should a journalist’s story begin with the set phrase “in a surprise development,” as routinely happens. █████ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████████████ █████ ███████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ████ █████ ████████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ███████ █████████ ███████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ████████████ ███████████ ███ ███ ███████████ █████████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ █████ ████████ █████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████
Argument Summary
The author opens with a rhetorical question: should journalists start stories with "in a surprise development"? The rest of the argument walks through possible scenarios that might justify the phrase and rejects each one.
- If the surprise was the journalist's → no, journalists shouldn't intrude into their stories.
- If the surprise was someone else's → no, that person's surprise should have been specifically attributed.
- If lots of people were surprised → no, there's no point in belaboring the obvious.
The Implicit Point
The author never writes a sentence like "So journalists shouldn't use this phrase." But the structure makes that conclusion unavoidable.
The argument is built as an exhaustive list. There are only three reasons a journalist might use "in a surprise development": the journalist was surprised, someone else was surprised, or many people were surprised. The author rules out each one. With no reasons left standing, the answer to the opening rhetorical question has to be "no."
So the main conclusion isn't sitting in any single sentence. It's what the argument forces once every alternative has been knocked out. The right answer should be a "no" to "should journalists use this phrase?"
11.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
Journalists should reserve ███ ██ ███ ██████ █████ █ ████████ ██████████████ ███ █████ ████████████ ████ ███ █████ ███████████
The author isn't recommending a more careful use of the phrase. The author is recommending against using it at all. "Reserve it for truly unexpected major developments" is a softer position than the argument supports. The third case the author considers ("lots of people were surprised") covers genuinely surprising developments, and the author still rules it out for "belaboring the obvious." So even truly-unexpected major developments don't escape the argument.
b
The phrase “in █ ████████ ██████████████ ██ █████████████ ████ ████ █████ ███████████ █████ █████████ ██ ██████ ████████████
The author doesn't say "use it only when someone's surprise is interesting." The author says no version of someone being surprised justifies the phrase. In the someone-else-surprised case, the author's complaint is that the surprise should be attributed by name, not that the surprise has to be interesting. (B) carves out an exception the argument never makes.
c
The phrase “in █ ████████ ██████████████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ████████ █████ ██ ██████████████
This confuses the setup with the conclusion. The three circumstances are part of the argument's structure: the author lists them precisely so each can be ruled out. The conclusion is what the author wants you to take away after the three cases are ruled out, not the existence of the three cases themselves.
d
Journalists should make ███ █████ ████ █ ███████████ █████ ██ █ ████████ ████ ███████ ███ ███ ████ ████████████ █ ██████
The author never says anything about where to put the surprise in a story (intro vs. summary, beginning vs. end). The argument is about whether to use the phrase at all. (D) introduces a distinction the stimulus doesn't make.
e
Introducing stories with ███ ██████ █████ █ ████████ ██████████████ ██ ███ ████ ████████████ █████████
Correct. Since the author rules out every possible justification for using the phrase, the only thing left to conclude is that using the phrase isn't good practice.