Hi @Haylye, thanks for your post. This is a Flawed Method of Reasoning question. The stimulus presents an argument. The conclusion is that the journalistic practice of fabricating remarks after an interview and printing them within quotation marks "is entirely defensible." The premise given is that "this practice avoids the more serious misrepresentation that would occur if people's exact words were quoted but their ideas only partially expressed."
The correct answer here is (C): this argument's questionable technique (i.e., flawed method of reasoning) is offering, as an adequate defense of a practice, an observation that discredits only one of several possible alternatives to that practice. In plain English, the argument gives us two extreme possible outcomes: either you quote people's exact words, but only partially express their ideas, OR you fabricate their remarks post-interview. But why couldn't the writer draft her story, and then run the quotations by the interviewed person to ensure coherence? Surely the only solution is not fabrication!
Answer choice (D) is not an accurate description of the flaw found in the stimulus. The premise given does not establish that the practice of fabricating remarks is "necessary" - rather, the premise given posits that this practice is a lesser of two evils. Indeed, the failure of the stimulus to actually establish that the practice of fabrication is, in fact, necessary is itself the flaw in the argument, as described in (C) and the explanation above.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
