DTW GED PREP

Conflicting Viewpoints and Recognizing Bias

When people discuss ideas or events, they often have different perspectives. An author may choose to describe these conflicting viewpoints in a fair and balanced way. However, if the author favors one side and presents only supporting evidence for that side—while ignoring or minimizing evidence for the other—this reveals bias.

Bias means the author is not being fully objective. Recognizing bias is a key reading skill you will be tested on in the GED® exam.

Sample Passage

Directions: Read the passage below, then answer the question.

Scientists are divided on the effects of blue light from electronic devices. Some say it interferes with melatonin levels and sleep, while others believe common-sense precautions can reduce these problems.

A Swiss study at the University of Basel exposed participants to computer monitors for five hours. Some monitors emitted blue LED light, others emitted white light. The blue light users had lower attention spans and reduced melatonin production.

A second study from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute confirmed this. Adolescents using blue light devices within two hours before bedtime had melatonin levels drop by 22%. The effects varied depending on screen distance and light intensity.

The writer adds that tinted goggles or screen filters can reduce blue light’s impact, and concludes by saying that technology is too valuable to abandon because of these side effects.

Question: What is the writer’s viewpoint?

A. The writer is against all advances in electronic technology.
B. The writer believes that problems with electronic devices can be resolved.
C. The writer thinks that electronic devices should be banned.
D. The writer wants scientists to stop studying the effects of blue light.

✅ Correct Answer: B

Explanation:
While the writer acknowledges the harmful effects of blue light, they also point out that practical solutions (like goggles or filters) exist. The writer supports continued use of technology and does not call for bans or an end to research. This shows a balanced and problem-solving perspective.