Question

Rg/#/administer

Passage 1
Americans should not be taxed to fund the Public Broadcasting Service, and Congress should terminate
funding for it. We wouldn't want the federal government to publish a national newspaper. Neither should we
have a government television network and a government radio network. If anything should be kept separate
from government and politics, it's the news and public-affairs programming that informs Americans about
government and its policies. When government brings us the news-with all the inevitable bias and spin-
the government is putting its thumbs on the scales of democracy. Journalists should not work for the
government. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize news and public-affairs programming.
Passage 2
Should the government fund a national public broadcasting system? While many artistically minded
people choose to support the appropriation of their tax dollars to PBS, others consider the financial
entwining of journalism and the government inappropriate. Some claim that since PBS is no longer the
fledgling weakling that it was when it was founded, there is no longer any need for taxpayers to continue to
fund it. Arts supporters counter that without government money, PBS will not be able to sustain its financial
commitment to the creation of television that deals with nonmainstream, culturally diverse topics and art
forms.
Question
Compared with the tone of Passage 2, the tone of Passage 1 is more
O balanced
O sincere
Adapted from David Boaz, "Why PBS Is a Public Menace." ©2011 by NYP Holdings, Inc.
O emphatic
O ironic

Answer 1

Answer:Compared with the tone of Passage 2, the tone of Passage 1 is more emphatic. Passage 1 presents a strong and assertive argument against government funding for PBS, while Passage 2 presents both sides of the argument in a more neutral manner.

Step-by-step explanation: