The author never suggests reasons why the “cultural imperialism” assertion is supported by comms specialists. (A) also ignores a key part of the passage: the author’s recommendations in P3 and P4.

This is an excellent low-res summary. The author takes issue with the comms specialists’ “cultural imperialism” assertion in P1, presents counter-examples in P1 and P2, suggests that an anthropology-like approach be taken in P3, and discusses two questions that should be addressed in P3 and P4.

The author doesn’t introduce a new view that runs counter to the “cultural imperialism” assertion, because she doesn’t actually commit to any particular theory on what the impact of imported media is. Rather, she simply notes that the “cultural imperialism” assertion isn’t well supported, and then gives recommendations—which (C) ignores—on how to develop a well-supported theory.

This twists the organization of P3 and P4. The author doesn’t discuss two individual ways in which her recommended approach will benefit the comms specialists. Rather, she discusses two key recommendations that, taken together, will offer one broad benefit: they’ll help to answer the question of how imported media impact people. (B) is a better description of this.

The author doesn’t introduce a new view that runs counter to the “cultural imperialism” assertion, because she doesn’t actually commit to any particular theory on what the impact of imported media is. She also doesn’t suggest a compromise. Rather, she suggests that the comms specialists should set their assertion aside, and offers some key considerations to help them develop a better-supported theory.