Self-study
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. █████ ████████████ ████ ███ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████ ███ ██ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ ████████████ ████████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ████████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ █████████
Structure: Response to Someone Else's Argument
The editor starts by summarizing someone else's argument: David Salino thinks the newspaper misquoted the Qinkoan prime minister, and Salino is concerned about the consequences of this misquotation. The editor responds by saying that these consequences will not be the fault of the newspaper. He supports this claim by pointing out that Qinkoan authorities have confirmed that the newspaper's translation of the prime minister's remarks was acceptable, and then appeals to the principle that no newspaper can be blamed for the consequences of its reporting if that reporting is accurate.
Identify Main Conclusion
We know the conclusion isn't in the first sentence, since that summarizes Salino's argument, which the editor is responding to. It's important to notice that, unlike in a straightforward counter-argument structure, Salino doesn't offer one conclusion that the editor rejects. The editor does reject Salino's claim that the newspaper misquoted the prime minister, but doesn't reject the idea that there will be consequences from their reporting on the prime minister's remarks. Instead, the editor's main point is that those consequences "will not be our fault."
We know this is the main point because it is followed by a "since" introducing support: the Qinkoan embassy officials and Qinkoan scholars have confirmed that the translation was accurate. This fact then allows the editor to appeal to a general principle that if a newspaper's reporting is accurate, the newspaper can't be held responsible for the consequences of its reporting — a principle that also supports the claim that the editor's newspaper is not responsible for the consequences of its reporting on the Qinkoan prime minister's remarks.
5.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ █████ ███████
a
What the prime ████████ ████ █████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ █ ███████████
Incorrect. There is nothing in the argument about whether the prime minister's remarks themselves were a distortion. The argument does talk about whether the newspaper's reporting of those remarks was a distortion or not, though even that is not the main point of the editor's argument.
b
Assessing the likely ████████████ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ████████████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ████ █████████
Incorrect. The editor never talks about whether the remarks "ought" to have been reported or not.
c
The newspaper’s rendering ██ ███ █████ ████████████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ██ ██████
Incorrect. This is a reference to the statement about the Qinkoan embassy officials and the scholars at the Institute of Qinkoan Studies confirming the translation was accurate. But that appeal is offered as support for the editor's actual main point, that because the reporting was accurate, the editor's newspaper is not responsible for the consequences of its reporting.
d
The newspaper cannot ██ ████ ███████████ ███ ███ ███████ ████████████ ████ █████ ██████ ██████ ████ ██████ ██████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ████████████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████
Correct. This is an accurate rephrasing of the editor's claim that "Those consequences" — i.e., the consequences Salino predicts — "will not be our fault."
e
David Salino’s assessment ██ ███ ██████ ████████████ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ████████████ ███████ ██ ███████████
Incorrect. The editor contests the accuracy of Salino's claim that the newspaper "distorted" the prime minister's remarks, but doesn't contest the accuracy of what Salino thinks the consequences will be.