Question

adapted from \the shackled editor\
by an editorial writer
this article, published in collier’s magazine in april 1918, was written anonymously by an editorial writer
bout the influence of advertisers on the daily newspapers he worked for.
my business is that of editorial writing, ... an unusual amount of freedom of expression is granted me,
and in my present department, which is signed, i am permitted to say exactly what i think in almost
every case. it never is required of me to say that which i do not believe, i am forced to be silent
concerning subjects that simple justice demands should be treated frankly.
in this city (a western city of 200,000 population) a few days ago a department store girl was arrested
for the theft of a shirt waist.1 the fact transpired that her wages were $6 a week, and constituted her
sole support. out of this she had to pay for a room, and $3 is the least price for a respectable room.
she had to pay her board, and the remaining $3, through scrimping, would scarcely do this. she was
expected to dress well. how?

the department stores of this city are large and thriving institutions. the owners have made fortunes.
singularly enough, the proprietors of these stores are such good men that they nearly make a
profession of their goodness. they head movements for uplifting men that anything but the persons who toil for
them. they would throw light on the plight of the lowly, excepting the lowly they have created, and
their predicament to keep at that status.
opening the matter, i said to my editorial superior that i would like to take a fall out of these $6-a-
week purveyors’ of philanthropy.
“i agree with you fully” he replied, “and so does mr. — owner, but it can’t be done. they are too
strong for us.”
he admitted that the paper was in favor of many reforms, and was actively supporting a number.
“yes!” he said, “were we to take up this particular reform, we would be put out of business, i mean
this literally. the merchants here are organized. suppose we were to attack the wage scale,
contemptible as it is, every merchant who subscribes would cut off his patronage from us absolutely. if

read the excerpt from “a shackled editor”
our hearts are all right, but we have no papers of our own, haven’t sense enough to get any, and while we are
grinding out commonplaces, are grinding our teeth over editorials that would not seem commonplaces at all
could they get into print.
what is most likely the intended effect of the repetition of the words grinding and commonplaces?
it draws attention to the daily frustration that many journalists feel.
it emphasizes the physical and mental fatigue that many journalists suffer.
it highlights the fact that many journalists do not like their jobs.
it illustrates how many journalists are emotionally attached to their work.

Explanation:

To determine the intended effect of the repetition of "grinding" and "contemplations", we analyze the context. The excerpt talks about journalists having ideas (contemplations) but being unable to get them printed, and "grinding" implies frustration. Option A says it draws attention to daily frustration journalists feel, which matches as they grind out contemplations (work on ideas) but grind teeth over not getting them printed (frustration). Option B's "physical and mental fatigue" is not supported (grinding teeth is frustration, not fatigue). Option C's "not like their jobs" is not indicated. Option D's "emotionally attached" is opposite of the frustration tone. So the correct answer is the first option.

Answer:

A. It draws attention to the daily frustration that many journalists feel