Thanks for the question! So the question is basically asking us to rephrase the point that Anita’s making. Now, although it’s just asking about Anita, it would be a mistake to just read Anita’s portion, since it refers to Marcus’s statements. So we have to read through those and then read through Anita’s in order to understand the full context of the situation.
Now, Marcus is basically saying that traditional journalistic ethics is adequate for most ethical dilemmas. Anita, however, disagrees, and says that “in the typical case,” journalists will have some information but not know if it’s important or newsworthy, and in these typical cases, traditional journalist ethics (“this guidance”) doesn’t really help. This is basically what we’re told in (C)—that the ethical principle Marcus cites (traditional journalistic ethics) doesn’t help in a typical kind of situation when a decision needs to be made.
Now, (D) is incorrect because it is worded far too strongly. Always be wary around words like “no/none” and “all” in must be true questions. Is Anita really saying that no principle of journalistic ethics can be of help in common situations? We can’t deduce that based on the statements we’re given in the passage. We only know that traditional journalistic ethics can’t help, but there might be some other kind of journalistic ethics that can be of help. Anita’s statements don’t preclude this possibility, and so (D) is too strong and must be eliminated.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
