- AThe paper reported that the new footbridge at the station was opened on 3 March, whereas it was in fact opened on 13 March
- BThe paper's columnist called the new footbridge ugly, and several readers wrote in to say that they find it handsome
- CThe paper argued in an editorial that the money spent on the footbridge would have been better spent on the approach road
- DThe paper's reviewer called the canteen at the station the worst in the district, and the canteen's owner takes a different view
Step-by-Step Solution
An opening date is a matter of fact, it was stated wrongly, and that is precisely what the principle asks to be corrected. Calling a footbridge ugly, arguing that money would have been better spent elsewhere and rating a canteen worst are all judgements; that readers or an owner disagree with them is the situation the principle deliberately exempts.
Answer: A) The paper reported that the new footbridge at the station was opened on 3 March, whereas it was in fact opened on 13 March