PT11.S2.Q19 - Televisions vs Newspapers

thecmancanthecmancan Alum Member
edited October 2019 in Logical Reasoning 161 karma

I picked D and confirmed myself in review.

The conclusion of the argument seem to be that watching network TV increases tendency to think of public issues in simple terms as compared to newspaper reading.

A is the credited answer. But even if one were to read the paper AND watch TV news, it is still the case that TV news programs make that person think about issues on simple terms? Doesn't it affirm the conclusion that people watch TV news for a simple view on an issue and than read the papers for the "full" view on it?

I really don't get why A is credited over D.

The primary objection to TV news is that it's over in 30 seconds using slogans, that's why it is "simplifying" our thinking. But if TV news devote equal time discussing multiple view points, then doesn't this weaken the conclusion? It suggest that since we learn about the opposing views, it can no longer be said that the TV watcher's understanding of the issue is simple.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Comments

  • thecmancanthecmancan Alum Member
    161 karma

    HELP

  • --skim----skim-- Alum Member
    102 karma

    If regular tv watchers are much more likely than other people to be regular newspaper readers then we can't confidently say the premises (tv = careful discussion of public issues disappears, newspaper = maintain careful discussion of public issues) support the conclusion (that regularly watching tv, unlike regularly reading the newspaper, increases tendency to oversimplify public issues). If it's the same people regularly doing both activities, how can we be so certain that they're more likely to think of public issues in oversimplified terms (the effects of tv) rather than maintain careful discussion of public issues (the effects of newspaper)? We don't and this is exactly how A weakens the support the premises give the conclusion.

    D has no impact on the argument. It just says that equal time is given to each side. But it doesn't address the problem with tv news programs, which is that they allot too little time (only 30 seconds) to each side and so watchers only get a superficial understanding that reduces careful discussion. Who's to say that they'll have a greater understanding after hearing multiple views? If it's still 30 seconds, maybe they'll just remember another slogan. You would have to make a lot of assumptions to make D right.

  • thedramallamathedramallama Member
    103 karma

    The argument concludes that an individual who watches TV will have an increased tendency of thinking in oversimplified terms. In the case of AC A, if an individual watches both TV and reads the newspaper, who's to know if TV watching increases the tendency to think in certain ways? The reading of the newspaper might have a net increased in thinking or it might not. Basically, too many confounding variables cannot prove a valid conclusion.

Sign In or Register to comment.