Can someone help me with this reading question? Here's the extract:
Every Picture Tells a Story [...] Stage drama, which consits mostly of speech, imitates and reproduces the redundancies of real speech with various degrees of stylisation. In some modern dramas, this is taken to an extreme, so that the dialogue seems to consist almost entirely of redundant language whose, function is purely phatic (merely establishing contact between the two speakers), leaving us in the dark as to what is being communicated.
What approach do some playwrights take towards conversational redundancy?
A They ignore it. B They exploit it. C They use it inconsistently. D They see it as a necessary tool.
The answer is B, which makes sense, but when I was doing this exercise I couldn't decide between B and D. B makes sense because exploit = take to an extreme. Can't we argue that they need redudancies to establish context between the two speakers?
Thank you in advance.
Top answer
Exploitation is not necessarily extreme or unfair. To exploit something is to use it, to take advantage of it. B is the right answer.
— Enoon
Exploitation is not necessarily extreme or unfair.
To exploit something is to use it, to take advantage of it.
B is the right answer.
I gave D a long look, myself, but there are many ways besides redundancy to establish context, I suppose.
Free · every Monday
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
Exploitation is not necessarily extreme or unfair. To exploit something is to use it, to take advantage of it. B is the right answer. I gave D a long look, myself, but there are many ways besides redundancy to establish context, I suppose.