Question

adapted from \the shackled editor\
by an editorial writer
the 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. but i am forced to be silent
concerning subjects that simple justice demands should be treated frankly.
in the (the is western city of 300,000 population) a few days ago a department store girl was arrested
for the theft of a thin 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
supposed 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 free goodness. they head movements for uplifting anything but the persons who toil for
them. they would throw light on the path of the lowly, accepting the lowly they have created and
had profitable to keep at that status.
opening the subject, 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 your talk,\ he replied, \and so does mr. — (owner), but it can’t be done. they are too
strong for us.\
he explained that the owner was in favor of many reforms, and was actively supporting a number.
\but,\ he added, \were we to take up this particular reform we would be put out of business, i mean
the journal. the merchants here are organized. suppose we were to attack the wage scale

how does the author of \the shackled editor\ respond to opposition from the editorial superior?
the author disagree with the editorial superior, saying there is no choice but to write about the
issue.
the author concedes that the editorial superior is right but eventually goes on to challenge the
merchants.
the author accepts what the editorial superior says as true but resents the circumstances.
the author challenges the editorial superior, saying that other journalists will write about the matter
instead.

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze each option:

1. First option: The author says they're forced to be silent on some issues, so "no choice but to write" is wrong.
2. Second option: The editorial superior says they can't write about it (due to merchants' power). The author later challenges the merchants (by criticizing their practices), after initially conceding the superior's point (they can't write about it). This matches.
3. Third option: The author doesn't "accept" the superior's reasoning as true; they challenge the merchants, so "accepts as true" is wrong.
4. Fourth option: The author doesn't say other journalists will write; they focus on challenging the merchants' practices.

Answer:

The author concedes that the editorial superior is right but eventually goes on to challenge the merchants.