Q1 - personal attack in politician election

[kalindazhang]

It seems a simple question, I can understand the key sentence is the one that says" Political commentators,however, cannot be",which point out the major role in this stimulus.

But I have two questions,
1st, what does the last sentence contribute to the main point?

2nd, did answer B could be translated in another way saying" political commentators shouldn't be excused for mudslingling? I'm not sure what does the phrase " resort to personal attacks on their opponents" refer to, especially "their".

Anyone could help? Thanks.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, kalindazhang!

So, while the question is asking for the main point, remember that this is another way of asking what the conclusion of the argument is.

First stop, argument core! We've to sort the premise(s) from the conclusion, and the background noise from the argument core itself. All that information about politicians is background noise. The author is not making a case here, or backing up an argument. He's just laying out the situation as it stands with politicians.

When he turns the camera to political commentators, though, that's where things get interesting. The last three sentences are the argument core. The conclusion comes right away - unlike politicians, political commentators cannot be excused for mudslinging. Your paraphrase was spot on! The next two sentences both provide support for that conclusion.

PREMISE:
1) Political commentators should be engaged in sustained/serious debate
2) Personal attacks/mudslinging just cut off debate.
CONCLUSION: Political commentators can't be excused for mudslinging!

(B) gives us another valid paraphrase of the conclusion: Political commentators should not mudsling!

The phrase "resort to personal attacks" just means the same mudslinging and personal attacks the argument was discussing. "Their opponents" means 'the opponents of the political commentators". So, this simply means that the political commentators should not mudsling (or personally attack) at the people who disagree with them!

Let's take a quick spin through the incorrect answers:

(A) The conclusion is about political commentators, not politicians!

(C) The conclusion is about political commentators, not politicians!

(D) We never talk about the purpose of serious debate, just that it is what political commentators ought to be engaged in.

(E) The author never claims that voters ought to be more concerned. And again, our conclusion was about political commentators, not politicians!

Please let me know if this answered your question!

[kalindazhang]

To christine.defenbaugh

Yes, of course! Your analysis answered my questions well! Especially the structure part helps me figure out my core confusion ,in which I presupposed a relationship between the politicians and the political commentators according to my unnecessary,or even wrong, common sense.

Thank you so much,Christine!