Question 5.

The passage clearly highlights the potential risks associated with AI's linguistic capabilities, urging action to regulate its use. While the passage does present hypothetical scenarios and employs rhetorical questions, its tone is primarily grounded in a warning, not sensationalism or mere speculation. This points us towards Option A. The author systematically explains the dangers of unregulated AI tools, particularly their capacity to manipulate language and influence human culture. The warnings are thoughtful and aim to provoke awareness and a sense of urgency without excessive dramatisation. The tone is serious and measured, which aligns with a cautionary style.

The remaining tones do not describe the discussion appropriately. For instance, consider Option B: though the passage discusses AI's future implications, the focus is less on prediction and more on warning about what could happen if action is not taken. "Prescient" implies a focus on foresight and vision, but the passage emphasises immediate concerns and actionable advice. Similarly, the passage is not “alarmist” (Option C), as it avoids overly exaggerated or emotional claims. It uses logical arguments and examples rather than fearmongering. Option D is also a poor fit: although the passage concludes with a rhetorical question, this is a stylistic device rather than a defining characteristic of the tone. The primary goal is to issue a warning, not to leave the reader in a state of curiosity or wonder, making “quizzical” an incorrect characterisation.

Hence, Option A is the best choice.