adapted from \your 1,000 words\
by janet e. kolodzy

the passage appeared in the author’s introduction to shoutout: international journalists expose media censorship

what, then, is bad for us to be prevented from writing or speaking the truth? to be censored? americans who try to answer tend to think, four little words: the first amendment to the united states constitution, “or so it goes,” said a writer of social histories. court decisions have prevented the government from directly censoring the media. of course, this is not to say that media censorship does not exist. it is usually a more passive process (except— but it is far subtler than the government simply trying to prevent the media— or parts thereof— from saying— but it is far subtler than the government simply trying to prevent the publication of an embarrassing story.

what if those four little words had never been written? instead, let’s go one step further— what if permission to communicate had never existed? if there were no newspapers, radio, television, or even the internet, high as humans seem to rise can be how much we rely on journalism and their essential role: the dissemination of information.

the result, it is likely that our view of society would be much more limited than in the real world. our ability to make decisions concerning the events around us would rest on what we saw with our own eyes or on what others told us. a world without a free press would be a far cry from a democracy; democracy and information must function with each other. it has is difficult to communicate, try to imagine news of the dissolution of the soviet union, 1989. it became world news instantly after its public airing.

moreover, it is likely that our busy lives, predominantly spent earning a living, would make us busier and inward looking. we would be relatively uninterested in the events of the outside world. we would not have the time to investigate the events around us. it is highly unlikely we would find the time to go to a local council meeting or travel to a presidential candidate’s forum.

naturally, such an alternative world would be of interest to crooked politicians, but it reveals the importance of the media’s work: the difficult, and often thankless, task of scrutinizing the government on our behalf.

part b:
which piece of evidence from the passage supports the answer to part a?

our ability to make decisions concerning the events around us would rest on what we saw with our own eyes or on what others told us.

moreover, it is likely that our busy lives, predominantly spent earning a living, would make us busier and inward looking. we would be relatively uninterested in the events of the outside world.

we would not have the time to investigate the events around us. it is highly unlikely we would find the time to go to a local council meeting or travel to a presidential candidate’s forum.

naturally, such an alternative world would be of interest to crooked politicians, but it reveals the importance of the media’s work: the difficult, and often thankless, task of scrutinizing the government on our behalf

Question

adapted from \your 1,000 words\
by janet e. kolodzy

the passage appeared in the author’s introduction to shoutout: international journalists expose media censorship

what, then, is bad for us to be prevented from writing or speaking the truth? to be censored? americans who try to answer tend to think, four little words: the first amendment to the united states constitution, “or so it goes,” said a writer of social histories. court decisions have prevented the government from directly censoring the media. of course, this is not to say that media censorship does not exist. it is usually a more passive process (except— but it is far subtler than the government simply trying to prevent the media— or parts thereof— from saying— but it is far subtler than the government simply trying to prevent the publication of an embarrassing story.

what if those four little words had never been written? instead, let’s go one step further— what if permission to communicate had never existed? if there were no newspapers, radio, television, or even the internet, high as humans seem to rise can be how much we rely on journalism and their essential role: the dissemination of information.

the result, it is likely that our view of society would be much more limited than in the real world. our ability to make decisions concerning the events around us would rest on what we saw with our own eyes or on what others told us. a world without a free press would be a far cry from a democracy; democracy and information must function with each other. it has is difficult to communicate, try to imagine news of the dissolution of the soviet union, 1989. it became world news instantly after its public airing.

moreover, it is likely that our busy lives, predominantly spent earning a living, would make us busier and inward looking. we would be relatively uninterested in the events of the outside world. we would not have the time to investigate the events around us. it is highly unlikely we would find the time to go to a local council meeting or travel to a presidential candidate’s forum.

naturally, such an alternative world would be of interest to crooked politicians, but it reveals the importance of the media’s work: the difficult, and often thankless, task of scrutinizing the government on our behalf.

part b:
which piece of evidence from the passage supports the answer to part a?

our ability to make decisions concerning the events around us would rest on what we saw with our own eyes or on what others told us.

moreover, it is likely that our busy lives, predominantly spent earning a living, would make us busier and inward looking. we would be relatively uninterested in the events of the outside world.

we would not have the time to investigate the events around us. it is highly unlikely we would find the time to go to a local council meeting or travel to a presidential candidate’s forum.

naturally, such an alternative world would be of interest to crooked politicians, but it reveals the importance of the media’s work: the difficult, and often thankless, task of scrutinizing the government on our behalf

Accepted Answer

To solve this, we first need to know the answer to Part A (which isn't provided here). However, assuming Part A was about the importance of media or challenges without media, we analyze each option:

1. First option: Talks about decision - making based on own eyes vs. others’ info. Doesn’t directly relate to media’s role in scrutiny or time/interest issues.
2. Second option: Discusses being “busier and more insular” and uninterested in outside world. This is about personal disinterest, not media’s role in scrutiny.
3. Third option: Focuses on lack of time to investigate events. It’s about personal time, not media’s role.
4. Fourth option: Says a world without media would leave us with crooks’ versions, and media does the “difficult, often thankless, task of scrutinizing the government on our behalf”. This directly supports an answer (e.g., if Part A was about media’s role in scrutinizing government or providing info to avoid relying on biased sources).

# Answer:
The option "Naturally, such an alternative world would be of interest to crooked politicians, but it reveals the importance of the media’s work: the difficult, and often thankless, task of scrutinizing the government on our behalf." (the fourth option in the list)

Sovi.AI - AI Math Tutor

QUESTION IMAGE

Question

Explanation:

Answer: