Teacher: Journalists who conceal the identity

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct64% picked this

   A journalist undermines his or her own professional standing by submitting for publication statements that, not being attributed to a named source, are rejected

   Why this is right

   This connects the evidence to the New Concept in the Conclusion. It tells us directly how using an anonymous source that DOESN'T have the necessary qualities of good anecdotes would undermine the journalist's professional standing / reputation. If the content they submit is rejected for being implausible, unoriginal, or dull, they harm their professional reputation. This supports the teacher's argument that journalists rely on the intrinsic value of anecdotes when using anonymous sources.

   Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   64%
2. B

   No Impact7% picked this

   Statements that are attributed to a fully identified source make up the majority of reported statements included by journalists

   This is saying that most things aren't anonymous, but we only care to talk about what happens when a journalist DOES want to use an anonymous source, and this answer has nothing about that for us to grab onto.

   7%
3. C

   No Impact12% picked this

   Reported statements that are highly original will often seem implausible unless submitted by a journalist who is known

   This might be a tempting word salad, because it connects a journalist's reputation (known for solid work) with qualities that anonymous sources / anecdotes may or may not have. But the causality is reversed here. The argument is saying that the sort of anonymous testimony a journalist uses can affect their reputation. This answer is saying that a journalist's reputation can affect how people react to the anonymous testimony they use.

   12%
4. D

   Unclear Impact11% picked this

   Reputable journalists sometimes do not conceal the identity of their sources from their publishers but insist that the identity of those sources

   This introduces a distinction of "anonymous to the public, but known to the publisher" vs. "anonymous to the public and the publisher". It's not clear what we would do with that distinction, since the argument is just referring to anonymous sources. This answer involves journalists who already have a good reputation and "at least once" decide to partially reveal their anonymous source (to the publisher). But it doesn't involve anything like what the conclusion is claiming, wherein a journalist uses an anonymous source that could risk harming their professional reputation.

   11%
5. E

   Weaker Impact5% picked this

   Journalists who have special access to sources whose identity they must conceal are greatly valued

   Option (E) speaks to the value of journalists who have special access to anonymous sources, which somewhat connects using anonymous sources to reputation (they'd have a reputation among their publishers of being an important asset). But this has nothing to do with whether the anonymous testimony needs to conform to the standards of a good anecdote in order to avoid harming the journalist's professional reputation.

   5%