Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

PT9-S2-Q13- Criticism that the press

miriaml7miriaml7 Live Member
edited August 2020 in Logical Reasoning 1025 karma

I am having an incredibly hard time trying to digram the logic.

I diagramed the third sentence as follows:

/Profit Making ----> subsidy support (outside control)

The last sentence was the hardest for me to diagram. "No one will subsidize honest journalism"

No= G4=negate, necessary

Two ideas:

  1. willing to subsidize??

  2. honest journalism

honest journalism ----> /willing to subsidize

I think part of my confusion with this last sentence is trying to figure out what the two distinct ideas are.

I am also having a hard time trying to figure out how the third sentence and fourth sentence are linked together. I thought the correct answer was A.

Thanks in advance!

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • NamritaktNamritakt Member
    175 karma

    What we know: The press has the right to pander. Why? It needs to make profits. Why? Because if it was not profit making-------/be supported. What is the alternative to making profits/pandering? Getting subsidies. There are 2 issues with this: 1) no one will subsidize honest journalism (subsidized ------/honest journalism), and 2) giving way to outside control (subsidized -----outside control). We know that subsidizing and profit making are two different ideas. Consider the statement: if /profit making-------/be supported. What does it mean to be "not profit making"? Well, the ONLY alternative is a subsidy, so we can say if /profit making ----- subsidized AND link up the previous statement: subsidized ------/honest journalism. From this we get /profit making ----- subsidized ------ /honest journalism (propaganda). AC (A) if not subsidized, it is in no danger of outside control. All we have is subsidized ----- outside control, and we cannot conclude /subsidized ------- /outside control (negating the sufficient means the rule falls apart, and so this is an invalid argument form). We cannot conclude anything from negating the sufficient condition "subsidized" so eliminate all AC's with /subsidized as the sufficient condition following the "if". This leaves you with AC D and AC E as potential MBT's. (D) to produce honest journalism, it must be profit-making institution (honest journalism-----profit making). We know that /profit making----/honest journalism, so this is just the contrapositive and is a MBT. (E) to make a profit, it must produce honest journalism (profit making ------ honest journalism). This is the opposite of what we have (/profit making------/honest journalism).

  • miriaml7miriaml7 Live Member
    1025 karma

    Thank you for the detailed explanation!!

Sign In or Register to comment.