The recent proliferation of newspaper articles in major publications that have been exposed as fabrications serves to bolster the contention that publishers are more interested in selling copy than in printing the truth. Even minor publications have staffs to check such obvious fraud.
The above argument assumes that
(A) newspaper stories of dubious authenticity are a new phenomenon
(B) minor publications do a better job of fact-checking than do major publications
(C) everything a newspaper prins must be factually verifiable
(D) only recently have newspapers admitted to publishing erroneous stories
(E) publishers are ultimately responsible for what is printed in their newspapers
-----------------------
The author conclues that publishers are more interested in selling copy than in printing the truth. The evidence is that many newspaper articles have recently been exposed as frauds.
I don't understand why (E) should be assumed. Please somebody explain this. Thank you in advance!
The above argument assumes that
(A) newspaper stories of dubious authenticity are a new phenomenon
(B) minor publications do a better job of fact-checking than do major publications
(C) everything a newspaper prins must be factually verifiable
(D) only recently have newspapers admitted to publishing erroneous stories
(E) publishers are ultimately responsible for what is printed in their newspapers
-----------------------
The author conclues that publishers are more interested in selling copy than in printing the truth. The evidence is that many newspaper articles have recently been exposed as frauds.
I don't understand why (E) should be assumed. Please somebody explain this. Thank you in advance!
