Self-study
It has been claimed that television networks should provide equal time for the presentation of opposing views whenever a television program concerns scientific issues—such as those raised by the claims of environmentalists—about which people disagree. ████████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ █████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██████ ██████ ██████ ████ █████████ █████████ ████████████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████████ █████████ ██ █ ███████ ████████ ██████████ ███████ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ██ ██ ████ █████ ████ ███████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that television shows covering scientific issues need not give equal time to opposing views. Why? Because scientific issues are not like social issues, which are politically important and can rarely be settled definitively.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes there’s no other reason a program would be obligated to provide equal airtime to opposing sides of an issue. She also assumes scientific issues can more often be settled than social issues and are less likely to have important political consequences.
8.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████████ ███████ ███ █████████
a
No scientific issues ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████████████████ ████ █████████ █████████ █████████████
This strengthens the argument. It rules out the possibility that environmentalists on television raise scientific issues that, like social issues, have important political consequences.
b
There are often ████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████████ █████████
The number of opposing views is not relevant to the argument. Advocates of multiple positions can be given equal time even if there are three or more positions.
c
Some social issues █████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ █████ ████ ███ ███ █████████ ████████ █ ████ ████████
This could refer to only a small number of social issues, so it doesn’t refute the author’s general assertion about them: they can “seldom” be settled definitively.
d
Many scientific issues ████ █████████ █████████ ████████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████
This ruins the author’s basis for contrasting social and scientific issues. If scientific issues are like social issues in this way, then by the author’s argument programs should offer equal time to opposing views on scientific issues as well.
e
Some television networks ██████ ██ █████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ █████████ █████████ ████████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████
This implies some networks may be reluctant to discuss social issues, not that those networks would give equal time to opposing views on scientific issues. It’s possible the same networks would refuse to broadcast programs discussing scientific issues.