As the current information explosion forces

Answer choices

1. A

   Never Stated2% picked this

   The drawbacks of the information explosion now outweigh

   On Main Conclusion, the correct answer should match the author's explicit conclusion (in meaning, even if they switch up the wording). This idea was never stated, so it can't be the author's conclusion.

   2%
2. B

   Correct81% picked this

   People are more and more subjected to insignificant and

   Why this is right

   Yes, this seems like an equivalent meaning to our last sentence, which is the Conclusion. We can verify this answer using the Support Test: why should we believe that "people are more and more subjected to insignificant / unreliable information"? Because, journalistic standards have been lowered, as everyone is competing for clickbait and ad dollars.

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

   81%
3. C

   Premise / Intermediate Conclusion14% picked this

   Journalistic standards have fallen in recent

   We could potentially call this a Premise or Intermediate Conclusion, but the main conclusion is the idea drawn in the last sentence. This idea then leads to the last sentence. The last sentence is a consequence of the fact that journalistic standards have fallen.

   14%
4. D

   Premise1% picked this

   One result of the current information explosion is fierce competition among the print media, television, and the Internet for

   This tries to turn the dependent clause of the first sentence into its own complete sentence. That alone could scare us away from picking this answer. A main conclusion is not a modifying clause. It's a main clause, if not a standalone sentence. But we also know this first idea was just a Premise, or just the initial spark in the causal chain described.

   1%
5. E

   Never Stated1% picked this

   If journalists returned to earlier journalistic standards, the significance and reliability of news

   On Main Conclusion, the correct answer should match the author's explicit conclusion (in meaning, even if they switch up the wording). This idea was never stated, so it can't be the author's conclusion. This answer sounds more like a potential inference or assumption we could accuse the author of thinking, based on her claims, but that's not what Main Conclusion is asking for. It wants us to point to the explicit claim that was the conclusion and find an answer that says the same thing as that explicit claim.

   1%