Passage Summary: Just because we are trained to spot lies in words doesn't mean we can spot them in maps, especially since we aren't taught how to read maps critically.

Conclusion: We should not assume that people are immune to being misled by maps just because they are generally not misled by language.

Reasoning: Maps and language are both capable of being manipulated; however, while people receive education on how to interpret language cautiously, they receive almost no training in the sophisticated use of maps.

Analysis: This is a 'Role in Argument' question, so we must focus on the structural relationship between the sentences. The statement in question explains why people are generally successful at interpreting language: they are specifically taught to do so. This serves as a premise that, when contrasted with the lack of map education, supports the conclusion that we are likely more vulnerable to map manipulation. It provides the 'why' behind the first half of the second sentence.