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

(E) using the opponent's admission that a practice is sometimes appropriate as conclusive proof that that practice is never inappropriate


Another convoluted one..don't forget to post your explanation..