Support The format of network television news programs generally allows advocates of a point of view only 30 seconds to convey their message. █████████████ ███████ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██████ █████████ ██████████ ████ █████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ █████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████████████ ██ ███████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ █████████ ████████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ████ ████████ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████████████ ██████
The argument concludes that compared to reading newspapers, watching TV news makes viewers more likely to hold oversimplified views about public issues. This is supported by a whole lot of information about both TV news and newspapers, which we can divide into two causal chains.
Discussing TV news, the argument says that in general, those advocating for a point of view only get 30 seconds to make their point. This causes regular viewers to habitually think about issues in terms of slogans and catchphrases. In turn, this habit causes these regular viewers not to expect a careful discussion of public issues.
Discussing newspapers, the argument says that newspaper stories encourages readers to "pursue details of stories headed by the most important facts." This causes newspaper readers to expect a careful discussion of public issues. The comparison with TV news then supports the argument's conclusion.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████████ ███████ ███ █████████
Regular watchers of ███████ ██████████ ████ ████████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ██ ████████ ███████ ██ ███████████
(A) is an imperfect correct answer: the argument is about the causal link between TV news and oversimplified views, and (A) doesn't directly weaken that link. However, (A) is still the only answer choice that offers any moderating effect to limit the impact of TV news, which makes it correct.
Even if TV news promotes oversimplification, if viewers are also more likely to read newspapers, that suggests there's some kind of counterbalance to the influence of TV news. Since these two effects could cancel each other out, TV news might actually not do that much harm.
Including any 30-second ██████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ █ ██████ █████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██████████ ████ ████████ ████████ ████ ████ ███ ███ █ ████ ████████
Not only does each proponent get only 30 seconds to speak, each topic gets 90 seconds total (on average). That limits both the number of proponents who can be quoted and the amount of nuance news anchors can contribute. (B) only intensifies the effects discussed in the argument, which strengthens, rather than weakening.
The format of ███████ ██████████ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ██████ █████ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██████
Like (B), (C) adds another limitation. And in further limiting the amount of depth with which TV news approaches issues, (C) only strengthens the argument by intensifying the problem it discusses.
Television news reports ████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██████
(D) could weaken if the argument claimed that TV news was one-sided. However, that's not what it says; (D) is still fully compatible with the actual conclusion that TV news oversimplifies issues. 30-second soundbites, even from people holding opposing views, still can't convey much nuance.
People who watch ███ ████ ███████████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ██ ██ ███████ ███████ ██ ███████████
This means there's no counterbalancing effect for people who are susceptible to the simplified views of TV news. (E) makes it even more likely that viewers will think in oversimplified terms.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic