Self-study
Commentator: Many social critics claim that contemporary journalists' cynical tendency to look for selfish motives behind the seemingly altruistic actions of powerful people undermines our society's well-being by convincing people that success is invariably associated with greed and mendacity. ███ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████████ ███████████ ██████ ██ █ ████████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ██████ ████ ███████ ███████ ███████████ ████ ██ █████████ ████ ██████████ ████ █████ █████████████
Argument Summary
Some social critics argue that contemporary journalists' cynicism undermines society's well-being. The commentator pushes back, calling that claim absurd. The reasoning: journalists have always been cynics, and today's are if anything more restrained than their predecessors, so the cynicism cannot be undermining society.
In other words: journalist cynicism has been around forever, therefore it can't be undermining society now.
Old Doesn't Mean Harmless
The commentator's argument works only if we assume journalist cynicism wasn't undermining society in the past. The commentator never establishes that. The commentator just notes that the cynicism existed.
Now consider the alternative. What if journalist cynicism has been undermining society's well-being the whole time? Then the fact that the cynicism is old doesn't help the commentator. It just means the harm is old too. The longevity of a cause doesn't prove the cause isn't doing damage; it just proves the damage has been happening for a long time.
Consider this analogous argument: "Smog has been in cities for over a century, so smog can't be making people sick today." The age of smog doesn't exonerate it. It just means people have been getting sick from smog for over a century.
15.
The reasoning in the commentator's ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████████ ████
a
widespread cynicism is ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████
This goes in the wrong direction and addresses the wrong target. The argument is specifically about journalists' cynicism, not "widespread cynicism" across society in general. And if cynicism were beneficial to society's well-being, that would help the commentator's conclusion that cynicism doesn't undermine society. The commentator isn't overlooking anything by failing to consider a point that would have supported the commentator's own position.
b
cynicism about the ███████ ██ ████████ ██████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███ ███ █████ ████
Whether cynicism grows with information has nothing to do with whether journalists' cynicism is undermining society. The commentator's argument is about the effect of cynicism on society, not about what produces cynicism in the first place. (B) speaks to the second question and stays silent on the first.
c
the work of ████████████ ███████████ ████████ █ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████
Whether journalists' cynicism is sincere or performative doesn't change the question on the table, which is whether that cynicism is undermining society's well-being. Performative cynicism can still spread cynical ideas, and if those ideas are doing damage, the journalists' inner beliefs aren't going to make the damage go away.
d
any accurate description ██ █████ ████████ ████████ ██ ██ ███████
This is about accuracy, not impact. Even if cynical descriptions of human behavior are accurate, that doesn't tell us whether broadcasting those descriptions undermines society's well-being. An accurate account of selfish behavior could still erode trust, demoralize the public, or do any number of things that count as undermining society.
e
cynicism of this ████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███████████ ███ ██████ ███ █ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████
This is exactly the possibility the commentator overlooks. The commentator argues that journalist cynicism can't be undermining society because the cynicism has always existed. That could make sense only if past cynicism wasn't undermining society either. (E) raises the possibility that cynicism has been undermining society all along. Under that scenario, the longevity of the cynicism doesn't prove that it's harmless. It just means the harm has been ongoing for a long time, and the commentator's argument isn't persuasive.