Self-study
The commercial news media emphasize exceptional events such as airplane crashes at the expense of those such as automobile accidents, which occur far more frequently and represent a far greater risk to the public. ███ ███ ██████ █████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ████ ██ █████ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████
Stimulus Summary
The stimulus points out that the commercial news media tend to focus on "exceptional events" like airplane crashes at the expense of more common events like automobile crashes, which actually pose a much greater threat to the public. But the public interprets the degree of the media's emphasis on these events as indicating the degree of the risk they pose.
Analysis: Most Strongly Supported
If these statements are true, then it seems strongly supported to conclude that the public probably has a skewed view of the risks they run from various events — they probably overestimate the risk from exceptional events, and underestimate the risk from less exceptional ones.
9.
If the statements above are █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ █████
a
Print media, such ██ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ███ █ ██████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██████
Incorrect. The stimulus just talks about "commercial news media" in general, which could include print media as well as broadcast media. Since we don't know anything about how print and broadcast media compare in terms of emphasizing exceptional events more than common ones, we can't say that (A) is logically supported by the stimulus.
b
The emphasis given ██ ███ ██████████ ████ █████ ██ █████ ████████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ███ ███ ██████████████
Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't give us any reason to think that the public has a "taste for the extraordinary." We're only told how the public reacts to the emphasis placed by the commercial news media on various events — we don't know anything about the public's tastes.
c
Events over which ██████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ████ █████████ ████ █████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ██████
Incorrect. The only thing the stimulus tells us about people's risk perception is that it is influenced by the degree of emphasis placed on different types of events by the commercial news media. We don't know anything about whether people feel they have control over certain events or not, and so we can't say that (C) is logically supported by the stimulus.
d
Where commercial news █████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ████████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ██████ █████
Correct. The stimulus tells us that commercial news media disproportionately emphasize exceptional events over more common ones that pose greater risks, and that the public interprets the differing degrees of emphasis as indicating differing degrees of risk. It's therefore very strongly supported to conclude that, if people are getting most of their information from commercial news media, they will have a perception of risk that doesn't accurately reflect actual risk.
e
A massive outbreak ██ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ █ █████ ███ ████ ███████ ████████
Incorrect. (E) is consistent with what the stimulus tells us in the first sentence about the emphasis the commercial news media place on different types of events. But (E) isn't supported by the whole argument, since it doesn't connect at all to the second sentence about public perceptions of risk. We expect a conclusion that is supported by all the points provided in the stimulus, not a statement that is merely consistent with one part of the stimulus.