PT11.S2.Q18 - The format of television network news...

Comments

• georgianablythe16 Alum Member

  April 2023 143 karma

  The stimulus is comparing news reports on television versus news reporting via the paper. The argument notes the downsides of television reporting, namely that guests only have 30 seconds to express their viewpoints, meaning that they use catchphrases and buzz words to get their point across in the short amount of time they have. The argument says that this means people who regularly view network television news do not retain nuanced views of public issues.

  On the contrary, newspapers are able to include all the background information needed, as well as extensive explanations on both sides of a public issue.

  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.

  This question is a necessary assumption to it's asking us to find the answer choice that answers the question "if the conclusion is true, which of these assumptions must be true" The answer choice you pick, if negated, would destroy the argument. So:

  A - This doesn't matter. We don't care if they're interested in watching news programs that are more in-depth. We're talking about CURRENT news programs. Eliminate.

  B - Easy eliminate. Totally out of scope from the stimulus. Nothing in the stimulus refers to "striking images".

  C - This is an attractive answer choice. It strengthens the conclusion, but that's not what we're looking for here. So what if television is ABLE to present news in a nuanced way - they're NOT doing that currently. That's what we're concerned about, not whether or not it's possible for them to do so.

  D - This is the correct answer. Let's negate this answer choice and see what it does to our argument. "It IS USUAL, that network television news reporters offer additional factual evidence and background information to develop a story in which opposing views are presented briefly by their advocates." (The italicized portion of this can be tricky on the first read. This is basically just referring back to the structure of television news programs that we were introduced to in the stimulus. "a story in which opposing views are presented briefly by their advocates" can be translated into "a story where guests are only given 30 seconds to present their opposing viewpoint." The word "briefly" is simply a fill in for "30 seconds".) Regardless, negating this answer choice completely destroys the argument. If our conclusion is that viewers of network news aren't getting enough nuanced info because guests aren't given enough time to fully explain their positions, then the negation of this answer choice is basically saying "Not so fast. Viewers ARE getting this info from reporters before guests come on to argue their point of view." If this assumption were true then our conclusion falls apart. We MUST assume that reporters ARE NOT doing this on network television news.

  E - Easy Eliminate. No reference to bias and this doesn't matter to the argument. We're talking about GUESTS on television news programs sharing their POV's for an argument, not the reporter.