Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past quarter-century, perhaps the most far-reaching has been the inexorable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage.
It is difficult to the point of impossibility for the average reader under the age of forty to imagine a time when high-quality arts criticism could be found in most big-city newspapers. Yet a considerable number of the most significant collections of criticism published in the 20th century consisted in large part of newspaper reviews. To read such books today is to marvel at the fact that their learned contents were once deemed suitable for publication in general-circulation dailies.
We are even farther removed from the unfocused newspaper reviews published in England between the turn of the 20th century and the eve of World War 2, at a time when newsprint was dirt-cheap and stylish arts criticism was considered an ornament to the Publications in which it appeared. In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the critics of major papers would write in detail and at length about the events they covered. Theirs was a serious business, and even those reviews who wore their learning lightly, like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman, could be trusted to know what they were about. These men believed in journalism as a calling, and were proud to be published in the daily press. "So few authors have brains enough or literary gift enough to keep their own end up in journalism," Newman wrote, "that I am tempted to define ’journalism’ as ’a term of contempt applied by writers who are not read to writers who are’."
Unfortunately, these critics are virtually forgotten. Neville Cardus, who wrote for the Manchester Guardian from 1917 until shortly before his death in 1975, is now known solely as a writer of essays on the game of cricket. During his lifetime, though, he was also one of England’s foremost classical-music critics, and a stylist so widely admired that his Autobiography (1947) became a best-seller. He was knighted in 1967, the first music critic to be so honored. Yet only one of his books is now in print, and his vast body of writings on music is unknown save to specialists.
Is there any chance that Cardus’s criticism will enjoy a revival The prospect seems remote. Journalistic tastes had changed long before his death, and postmodern readers have little use for the richly upholstered Vicwardian prose in which he specialized. Moreover, the amateur tradition in music criticism has been in headlong retreat.
Which of the following would shaw and Newman most probably agree on（）
A. It is writers’ duty to fulfill journalistic goals
B. It is contemptible for writers to be journalists
C. Writers are likely to be tempted into journalism
D. Not all writers are capable of journalistic writing
参考答案：D
解析：
[定位] 根据题干中的shaw and Newman，可以定位于第三段。
推断题。文章第三段中提到了纽曼曾经写下的一句话，其中提到，很少有人可以拥有足够的智慧和天生的文采，能够在新闻事业上获得成功。故选项D正确。
[避错] 选项A：完成新闻业的目标是作家的职责。原文中没有提到。选项B：作家如果成为了新闻工作者就是可耻的。与原文相悖，原文中以Shaw和Newman这些作家为例，并说他们were proud to be published in the daily press，即为能够在日刊上出版文章感到自豪，故该选项错误。选项C：作家很可能会从事新闻行业。原文中没有提到。
[点睛] 正确选项中的not all是对原文中的few的同义转述，capable of journalistic writing是对原文中的have brains enough or literary gift enough to keep their own end up in journalism的同义转述。