Passage Summary: A critic argues that a funny story shouldn't include politics because the political parts distract the reader from the jokes.

Conclusion: The political message in the short story should have been omitted.

Reasoning: The story is intended to be humorous, and the political message interferes with that primary humorous effect.

Analysis: This is a 'Principle Justify' question, so we need a bridge between the premise (distraction) and the conclusion (should not be included). The critic is operating under the assumption that the primary goal of a work should not be undermined by secondary elements. Look for a principle that states something like: 'If an element of a work distracts from its primary purpose, that element should be excluded.' This turns a subjective opinion into a logical necessity.