In his best-selling book Hiroshima, John Hershey does not overtly moralize on the use of atomic weapons by the United States during World War II; rather, he tells a straightforward account of the Hiroshima bombing and its immediate aftermath, as a journalist would describe any natural calamity. But by their very nature, the people and scenes he describes are so powerful, so compelling, and so fraught with moral implications that the reader cannot escape confronting fundamental issues of how human beings treat one another, during time of war and otherwise. Many critics regard Hiroshima as the greatest single piece of journalism produced in the 20th century for the specific reason that its story so effectively demands moral engagement, even as it astounds with its objectivity. Today's journalists need not assign their stories a heavy load of moral baggage in order to strike a significant blow for the betterment of the world. They need only to recognize the universal elements contained in any story of consequence and to describe those elements in a style that is vivid, truthful and within the bounds of objectivity.

The author's primary purpose in the passage is to

(A) propose an alternative to traditional styles of journalism.
(B) criticize the lack of moral pronouncements in most journalism.
(C) describe how one author revolutionized journalism.
(D) emphasize the importance of first-person narrative in good journalism.
(E) suggest that objectivity can be valuable in contemporary journalism.



The author of the passage would probably consider which of the following stories to be most similar in style to the story Hershey wrote in Hiroshima?

(A) An author pleads for a prisoner's freedom by condemning his imprisonment from a religious standpoint.
(B) An author conveys the ferocity of a battle through first-hand accounts of what soldiers heard and said, and saw, felt, tasted, and smelled during the fighting.
(C) An author inspires donations to fund a wildlife preserve by attributing charismatic personalities to animals.
(D) An author endorses a course of political action by satirizing opponents as blundering imbeciles.
(E) An author recounts a personal tragedy by repeatedly blaming others for the misfortune.