Main point

@emmarie, Great question. In order to answer these questions with greater accuracy, I recommend focusing more on understanding each component of the stimulus and how it relates to the rest of what's being said in the passage. If this is done well, then the conclusion of the argument will always stand out, and identifying it in the answer choices will be much easier. When we read the stimulus and break the argument down, we find that the conclusion is that reporting must be balanced but that such balanced reporting does not justify concealing or glossing over basic injustices in an effort to be even-handed. The main premise for this conclusion is that if all of the media were to adopt such a perverse (i.e., concealing injustices in an effort to be even-handed) interpretation of balanced reporting, the public would be given a picture of the world where each party in every conflict had an equal measure of justice on its side. This sentence is tricky because it contains within it a premise and a conclusion. However, the conclusion of this sentence (the public would be given a picture of a world where each party in every conflict had an equal measure of justice on its side) is a subsidiary conclusion that supports the overall conclusion of the argument that reporting must be balanced but that such balanced reporting does not justify concealing or glossing over basic injustices in an effort to be even-handed. (B) says, "Balanced reporting requires impartially revealing injustices where they occur no less than fairly presenting the views of each party in a conflict." This is a great paraphrase of what we identified as the main point, which is "This concept of balance, however, does not justify concealing or glossing over basic injustices in an effort to be even handed." Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!