PT11.S2.Q18 - television slogans catch phrases

J K

* Premise:
- TV news watchers have NO expectations of careful discussion of public issues.
- newspaper readers have the expectation of careful discussion of public issues.
* Conclusion: In contrast to regular newspaper reading, regular watching of network television news programs increases the tendency to think of public issues in oversimplified terms.
*** WEAKENING Answer: Regular watchers of network television news programs are much more likely than other people to be habitual readers of newspapers.


I can see how the answer overlaps the two demographic groups(newspaper readers and TV watchers), but can't the conclusion still stand? Even if the same people watch the news AND read newspapers, the action of watching news itself(=the subject of the conclusion) can still have its impact. Whether they do read the newspapers or not, anybody who watches the TV news are still subjected to the influence of watching TV.... No?

Can anyone point out the critical flaw in my reasoning?
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat11-section-2-question-18/

paulfan2011

I don't see any flaw in your reasoning, the conclusion does still stand on its own, but this answer choice weaken's the support that flows from the premises to the conclusion. The argument makes sense because their is an assumption that the two groups are distinct, and by denying the that assumption, this weakens the argument. I can see this as a tough question. Where is this question from?

laladeeda

This is PT11 S2 Q18 I believe. First, it is important that the premises (for the main conclusion), which you have written above, are actually themselves conclusions - they are sub-conclusions of the main argument. This question may be tricky if you didn't realize this because the answer choice proceeds not by attacking the relationship between the premises and the main conclusion but instead by undermining the argument in favor of these premises.

The arguments for these sub-conclusions go as follows:

Sub-conclusion/Premise 1: (All) TV *watchers* have UVW attribute.

Why? Because TV *watching* causes UVW.

Sub-conclusion/Premise 2: (All) Newspaper *readers* have XYZ attribute.

Why? Because newspaper *reading* causes XYZ.

These arguments, however, are weak: they (among other things) fail to consider the possibility that TV watchers/newspaper readers participate in other activities that may outweigh the the UVW/XYZ effect.

The answer choice capitalizes on these weaknesses by showing that it is not necessarily true that (because they watch TV) all TV watchers have no expectations of careful discussion of public issues; if some TV watchers are in fact also habitual newspaper readers, (and therefore read newspapers) then the effect of reading newspapers may very well counteract the loss of expectation.

HTH!

CJ Shin

Ah, I saw this question before too.
The biggest assumption, thus a weakness, that the argument commits is that TV watchers and Readers are entirely exclusive entities (Notice the unwarranted dichotomy that the arguments tries to establish).
When you kick this assumption in the face, you have a reason to doubt that TV watching does not necessarily increase one's tendency to dumb down things.

J K

@paulfan2011, the question is PT11 S2 Q18.
@laladeeda, thanks so much for the detailed explanation! You pointed out exactly what I was missing: that I need to attack the gap between initial premises and sub-conclusions(if I understood you correctly).
@CJ, your insight about "the unwarranted dichotomy" is quite helpful too.