What is the central argument?
Social media platforms are often accused of either removing too much or too little. The truth is that any system handling billions of posts will make mistakes in both directions, and reducing one type of mistake usually increases the other. A strict filter catches more abusive posts but also removes legitimate jokes and news reports; a lenient one does the reverse. It follows that complaints about individual decisions, however justified, say little about the quality of the system as a whole. What can be demanded is a fair process: clear rules, a chance to appeal, and published figures on errors. These do not remove mistakes, but they let users and regulators see where the balance has been struck and argue for a different one.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: B. Mistakes in moderation are unavoidable
- Step 1: The passage argues errors in both directions are inevitable and recommends rules, appeals and published figures.
- Step 2: That is a call for a fair process.
Answer
Mistakes in moderation are unavoidable.
Why not the others: The author accepts that individual complaints can be justified, and offers no verdict on strict versus lenient filters.
Practise more Media and the internet.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.