Question

read the excerpt from \children of the drug wars\.
\by sending these children away, you are handing them a death sentence, says josé arnulfo ochoa, an expert in honduras with world vision international, a christian humanitarian aid group. this abrogates international conventions we have signed and undermines our credibility as a humane country. it would be a disgrace if this wealthy nation turned its back on the 52,000 children who have arrived since october, many of them legitimate refugees.\
the underlined words and phrases have strong negative connotations. how do they support the author’s purpose?
○ they draw attention to the opinion that the united states is not doing enough to help these children.
○ they show that there is a desperate need for all countries to be willing to help refugees.
○ they show that the united states has participated in international conventions on how to handle the refugee crisis.
○ they make it clear that the united states will lose the respect of other nations if it does not help these children.

Explanation:

The underlined phrases (assuming they are critical of the US's handling of refugee children) aim to show the US isn't doing enough. The first option says they draw attention to the US not doing enough to help, which matches the excerpt's criticism (e.g., "undermines our credibility as a humane country", "would be a disgrace" if not helping). The other options: the second says countries are willing (excerpt implies the US isn't meeting a desperate need, not about other countries' willingness); the third says US participated in conventions (excerpt says "abrogates" conventions, so this is wrong); the fourth says US will lose respect if not helping, but the underlined phrases' main purpose is to highlight insufficient action, not just future respect loss. So the first option is correct.

Answer:

A. They draw attention to the opinion that the United States is not doing enough to help these children.