Question

read the excerpt from hidden figures. shetterly describes what happened when katherine goble asked if she could attend editorial meetings with the engineers she worked with. \is there a law against it?\ katherine retorted. there wasnt, in fact. there were laws telling her where she might answer natures call—a law she ignored at langley—and which fountain to drink from. there were laws restricting her ability to apply for a credit card in her own name, because she was a woman. but no law applied to the editorial meeting. it wasnt personal: it was just the way things had always been done, they told her. read sahils summary of the excerpt. katherine goble asked if it was against the law for her to attend the meetings. while there were many unjust laws that restricted her freedom, she was only being which summarizing mistake does sahil make? he includes a personal viewpoint he includes a minor detail he paraphrases instead of summarizing he does not include the main idea

Explanation:

The main idea of the excerpt is Katherine Goble's request to attend editorial meetings and the context of laws (but no law against the meetings). Sahil's summary focuses on laws restricting her freedom (a minor detail) rather than the main idea of her asking about attending meetings and the non - existence of a law against it.

Answer:

He includes a minor detail.