I think I got somewhat lucky for this question, in my brain, when I read "makes it impossible to have a good reputation" along with the justification "nobody says anything bad", it made me think:

If everything is "good" then nothing is "good"

If everything is "bad" then nothing is "bad"

The two are intrinsically dependent on one another. In order for there to be the concept of "good", there must be bad and visa versa.

This one also kindof reads like a RRE question to me too. So I was primarily concerned with filling the major gap by thinking "what would make this make sense?"

Two things that helped me decipher the right choice:

1) In NA Questions: Always testing the AC by saying "It is not the case that..." in front of the answer choice you've selected

2) For me, answer choice E was clearly wrong once I tried the test above because:

"It is not the case that TV drama does not require it's viewers to think about what they see"... But we aren't talking about "thinking about what we see", we are talking about "thinking about what we hear" which entails "picturing for yourself, such as physical appearance and spatial relations"... We have NO idea what "thinking about what we see" entails... There's nothing in the stimulus about that..

Further, you can take that it's given we already SEE what's on the TV (i.e. physical appearance and spatial relations) so there's no need to "think" in the same respect that the stimulus mentions. In my mind, AC E is talking about a completely separate form of "think".

Now, if you do the test above with AC D then you can see also that if it were NOT the case (D) then that would necessarily entail that TV Drama viewers COULD exercise their imagination in other ways, rendering the argument completely useless.

UGH! I just figured out why I got it wrong.

OPA: financial rewards = strongest incentive

Author: That's wrong because surveys show that high salary isn't most desirable trait, so you overestimate how much people are driven by money...

ERROR: "people don't list high-salary as most desirable, therefore, they are not driven financially"

So what that high-salary isn't topping the list? Maybe the annual bonus tops the list? That's still being driven financially. Author falsely equivocates "financial rewards" = "high-salary"

So... We want to show that the OPA could actually be RIGHT in their assertion REGARDLESS of the survey. So look for answer choice that still implicates "financial rewards" = "Strongest incentive", just bc salary isn't the most desirable doesn't mean people aren't motivated financially.

We are looking for:

People are still driven by money, regardless of salary not being "most desirable".

AC's:

A) Just says there's other things people want out of a job? Ok. So what? - Irrelevant

B) Survey's that say ppl pick higher wages. Ok... but that's not what we are looking for. It's just a random survey that says that people are driven by salary. Cool. It doesn't do anything.

C) Jobs that pay the same, differ in their other financial benefits.--> Great!!! Shows that people could still be driven financially regardless of salary.

(think: given 2 jobs that pay the same, one offers 30% bonus, the other offers 10% bonus... I am going to pick the one that offers 30% bonus. My strongest incentive is the financial reward of a bonus).

D) Just entirely irrelevant. Nothing about being appreciated.

E) Recreation?? What?? Who cares.

I am down to edit yours / swap! Mine isn't done yet but I have the first draft of it completed.

D is wrong to me because it's saying that "the exercise of a basic freedom (freedom of speech) leads to some harm" but the argument made in the stimulus doesn't talk about Freedom of Speech causing or leading to "some harm", it talks about how violent TV shows lead to some harm...

E is wrong to me because for starters, it's way too general, but it doesn't address "that it is consistent to support both things"... It's just saying we should do something... What regulations should I tolerate? and in what circumstances? If you re-organize it to say:

"In some circumstances, we should tolerate regulations that impinge on a basic freedom. Therefore, it is consistent to support freedom of speech and legislation limiting violence on TV."

it feels empty... It leaves too much room for assumption, you would have to infer that legislation limiting violence on TV is somehow impinging on a basic freedom. IDK. That's just how I thought of it.

I have listened to the explanation for Q #24 at least 3 times and I want to cry. Why is english not making sense?