In the following conversation, which group discussion technique does Emily most clearly show?

HAN:

Even though he's saying that the radiation hasn't made Japan's exported food dangerous to

eat, he's pulling out all the stops to make it seem as if Japan really messed things up, even though there's proof the disaster couldn't be prevented.

EMILY:

So you think the theme isn't really about the contamination, but about how Japan can't prevent natural disasters from destroying the reactors?

A. Using evidence to support a conclusion

B. Challenging established ideas

C. Synthesizing claims into a single conclusion

D. Finding additional information to support the discussion

APEX

Question

Addison Snow

English

17 February, 19:59

In the following conversation, which group discussion technique does Emily most clearly show?

HAN:

Even though he's saying that the radiation hasn't made Japan's exported food dangerous to

eat, he's pulling out all the stops to make it seem as if Japan really messed things up, even though there's proof the disaster couldn't be prevented.

EMILY:

So you think the theme isn't really about the contamination, but about how Japan can't prevent natural disasters from destroying the reactors?

A. Using evidence to support a conclusion

B. Challenging established ideas

C. Synthesizing claims into a single conclusion

D. Finding additional information to support the discussion

APEX

+5

Answers (2)

Know the Answer?

Mckayla Norris · Answer 1

Answer:c Synthesizing claims into a single conclusion

Camren Allen · Answer 2

Letter B is the correct answer.

Explanation:

Letter A is not the correct answer since Emily is not using any evidence and her intention doesn't seem to conclude the discussion.

Even though she synthesized Han's idea, as said in the previous paragraph, Emily doesn't provide one single conclusion, but continues the discussion by ending with a question.

She doesn't bring additional information to support the discussion, and that is why D is also incorrect.

Option B is correct since she challenges established ideas, as she focuses the problem on two things (contamination and the reactors) and then opens the discussion with a new question, as said before.