9. The journalistic practice of fabricating remarks after an interview and printing them within quotation marks, as if they were the interviewee’s own words, has been decried as a form of unfair misrepresentation. However, people’s actual spoken remarks rarely convey their ideas as clearly as does a distillation of those ideas crafted, after an interview, by a skilled writer. Therefore, since this practice avoids the more serious misrepresentation that would occur if people’s exact words were quoted but their ideas only partially expressed, it is entirely defensible.
Which one of the following is a questionable technique used in the argument?
(A) answering an exaggerated charge by undermining the personal authority of those who made that charge
(B) claiming that the prestige of a profession provides ample grounds for dismissing criticisms of that profession
(C) offering as an adequate defense of a practice an observation that discredits only one of several possible alternatives to that practice
(D) concluding that a practice is right on the grounds that it is necessary（C）
(E) using the opponent’s admission that a practice is sometimes appropriate as conclusive proof that that practice is never inappropriate
这题做错了，应该选（C），没什么疑问，大概也知道（C）的意思，可是总觉得这句话读不太通顺，请哪位NN帮我翻译一下（C）的句意吧，先谢过了
谢谢版主的解答，那具体到文章中，是不是说，在某观察的基础上，适当支持“将原话处理”这一惯例，而这种观察只对该惯例的几种可能替代选择之一“完全引述”提出了质疑？
应该是这样理解吗？
sort of. my understanding is,
other alternatives include: 1, quoted, and fully expressed. 2, quoted, but misrepresented. 3, not quoted, and fully expressed. 4, not quoted, but misrepresented.
the observation only cast doubt on 4, which is inadequate primarily because original remark "rarely " ( instead of "never") convey ideas exactly.
呀，原来是这样的啊，好开心啊，终于弄明白了
嗯，嗯，再次感谢版主的热心解答了
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |