16. In evaluating the differences between the two accounts, a reader can infer that
Answer: C
The authors each supported a different team in the game described.
In evaluating the differences between the two accounts, it can be inferred that the authors each supported a different team in the game described, as their perspectives likely reflect the biases and emotions associated with their respective allegiances.
A) the authors share a common point of view
This option is incorrect because the differences in their accounts suggest that they do not share a common point of view. If they had a unified perspective, their descriptions and interpretations of the events would likely be more aligned.
B) the authors are likely sports journalists for the same newspaper
While it is possible that the authors are sports journalists, this option does not address the specific differences in their accounts. Being from the same publication does not necessarily indicate differing team loyalties, which is central to the inference drawn from their contrasting narratives.
C) the authors each supported a different team in the game described
This option is correct as it explains the differing perspectives observed in their accounts. The authors’ support for opposing teams would naturally lead to varying interpretations and emphases in their writings, reflecting their biases as fans.
D) the authors recognized that the referees of the game favored the Hawks
This option is incorrect because it implies a shared conclusion regarding the referees' performance, which does not account for the individual perspectives of the authors. If they had differing loyalties, they may have interpreted the referees' decisions in contrasting ways rather than uniformly recognizing favoritism.
Conclusion
The correct answer, indicating that the authors each supported a different team, is supported by the nature of their differing accounts, which likely stem from their respective biases. All other options fail to address the fundamental reason for the disparities in their narratives, focusing instead on assumptions about shared perspectives or roles that do not align with the evidence presented.