Difficulty: Easy

Average Score: 80%

As Lillian walked up the road, she realized that the atmosphere was just too quiet. There was no sound from the robin who was nearly always singing from the top of the oak tree. She thought she saw a shadow move high up on the branches, but when she looked again it was gone. Suddenly, Lisa, who Lillian regarded as a little sister even though they were really just neighbors, jumped down from the tree with glee from having surprised her friend. Lillian fell backward onto the grass with a thud. She looked up at Lisa and began to laugh. Both girls loved to trick each other.

In evaluating the differences between the two accounts, a reader can infer that

Rationale

The authors each supported a different team in the game described.

The context of the accounts suggests a rivalry, which is often reflected in differing perspectives when recounting a sporting event. Each author's bias toward their favored team would naturally lead to contrasting interpretations of the same game, particularly in how they discuss key moments or decisions.

A (the authors share a common point of view) YOUR ANSWER

This choice is incorrect because a shared point of view would imply that both authors present a unified perspective on the game. However, the nature of sports journalism often leads to differing viewpoints, especially when team loyalties are involved, indicating that their perspectives are likely not aligned.

B (the authors are likely sports journalists for the same newspaper) YOUR ANSWER

While it's possible that two authors could write for the same publication, this choice does not directly address the differences in their accounts. Sharing a newspaper does not necessitate having differing viewpoints or supporting different teams, making this option less relevant to the given context.

D (the authors recognized that the referees of the game favored the Hawks) YOUR ANSWER

This choice implies a specific bias regarding the referees' decisions. While it is possible for authors to discuss refereeing in their accounts, without explicit evidence from the text indicating this shared observation, this inference does not logically follow from the premise of differing team support.

Conclusion

In summary, the key difference in the accounts arises from the authors' likely allegiance to different teams, shaping their narratives around the game. This rivalry results in contrasting interpretations and insights, making option C the most plausible inference about the authors' perspectives. Understanding these biases is crucial for readers analyzing sports journalism, as it highlights how personal affiliations can influence narrative framing.

Related Questions

View all