Solution
We need to find what practice the author would support based on their views about grammar and writing rules.
Let us trace the author's key beliefs:
The author believes grammar rules are helpful tools, not restrictions. They provide structure when writers need it.
From passage: "Grammar is the pole you grab to get your thoughts up on their feet and walking."
The author also says experienced writers can break rules, but only if they know what they're doing:
From passage: "Unless he is certain of doing well, [the writer] will probably do best to follow the rules."
So the author supports: Grammar knowledge β Safety net for writers β Better writing
π’ Option 1 is correct β Language software standardizing grammar rules as aid to writers - This matches perfectly! The author sees grammar as helpful structure ("safety net", "pole to grab"). Software that helps writers follow grammar rules would support the author's view that grammar helps writing.
π΄ Option 2 β irrelevant β Campaign for breaking grammar rules - Author says break rules only if you're "certain of doing well." A general campaign to break rules would create the "confusion" the author warns against.
π΄ Option 3 β context-shift β Avoiding rhetoric in Creative Writing - Author calls Strunk "Mussolini of rhetoric" but doesn't say avoid rhetoric completely. Author talks about navigating "tangles of rhetoric," not eliminating it.
π΄ Option 4 β opposite-view β Critiquing punctuation/capitalization rules - Author supports rules and structure. Critiquing standardized rules goes against the author's belief that rules prevent "confusion and misunderstanding."
The author wants grammar to help writers, not restrict them. Option 1 provides helpful tools while Options 2 and 4 attack the rules system, and Option 3 misunderstands the author's view on rhetoric.