Need help with a Point at Issue question

Comments

• calcal101 Alum Member

  March 2018 edited March 2018 582 karma

  For Point at Issue in which our two characters disagree, we want our answer choice to be one to which one person would say, "YES!" and the other would say, "NO!" In other words, we want our characters to have starkly opposite reactions to the answer choice.

  Answer choice D does just that. Character A (the moralist) would fully agree. In fact, the answer choice is just reiterating his argument, essentially. Character B (the host) would disagree, screaming "NO" if he heard that answer choice. He is unsure as to whether there is a moral decline in the first place--and if there is one, it isn't due to TV. In other words, TV is not a cause of moral decline. So D's our answer.

  As for how much to assume, I don't really think you need to assume anything to solve this question. For Point at Issue, you want to stay really rooted in the text and focus on the exact words of both characters, as well as their main conclusions
• lawgical Alum Member

  March 2018 edited March 2018 46 karma

  @calcal101 said:
  For Point at Issue in which our two characters disagree, we want our answer choice to be one to which one person would say, "YES!" and the other would say, "NO!" In other words, we want our characters to have starkly opposite reactions to the answer choice.

  Answer choice D does just that. Character A (the moralist) would fully agree. In fact, the answer choice is just reiterating his argument, essentially. Character B (the host) would disagree, screaming "NO" if he heard that answer choice. He is unsure as to whether there is a moral decline in the first place--and if there is one, it isn't due to TV. In other words, TV is not a cause of moral decline. So D's our answer.

  As for how much to assume, I don't really think you need to assume anything to solve this question. For Point at Issue, you want to stay really rooted in the text and focus on the exact words of both characters, as well as their main conclusions

  Then do I have to ignore the part “by inviting guests”? I am bothered by that qualification...
• jyarmo Alum Member

  March 2018 350 karma

  I would say yes, since the TV show host's opinion is that TV is NOT the cause of the moral decline, either by inviting guests (-- or bad talk show hosts or violence on dramas or whatever --) these reasons are secondary since his point is they are wrong and are NOT the cause. So in a sense, it doesn't matter what you want to articulate about them, they are not the cause. This is where they disagree. He isn't saying, "TV is not the cause of the moral decline but inviting these crappy guests ARE responsible..." the inviting crappy guests falls in the world of TV show and TV show is not the cause.
• calcal101 Alum Member

  March 2018 582 karma

  @lawgical said:

  @calcal101 said:
  For Point at Issue in which our two characters disagree, we want our answer choice to be one to which one person would say, "YES!" and the other would say, "NO!" In other words, we want our characters to have starkly opposite reactions to the answer choice.

  Answer choice D does just that. Character A (the moralist) would fully agree. In fact, the answer choice is just reiterating his argument, essentially. Character B (the host) would disagree, screaming "NO" if he heard that answer choice. He is unsure as to whether there is a moral decline in the first place--and if there is one, it isn't due to TV. In other words, TV is not a cause of moral decline. So D's our answer.

  As for how much to assume, I don't really think you need to assume anything to solve this question. For Point at Issue, you want to stay really rooted in the text and focus on the exact words of both characters, as well as their main conclusions

  Then do I have to ignore the part “by inviting guests”? I am bothered by that qualification...

  I don't think you need to ignore it in order to answer the question. Yes, you kind of need to assume that both characters think that is the case, but it's not a big jump. The TV talk show host talks about content being restricted (which would amount to censorship)--one can pretty much assume that he means the types of guests he's bringing in. @jyarmo makes a great point as well…the qualifier doesn't really matter here
• lawgical Alum Member

  March 2018 46 karma

  @jyarmo @calcal101 Thank you! Finally I am getting the hang of these kinds of question lol