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

PT29 S4 Q5

petitigrepetitigre Member
edited September 2015 in Logical Reasoning 227 karma
Can someone explain 29/4/5? (B) seems like it has the relationship backwards. In order for it to be the correct answer, shouldn’t it say that mainstream opinions are generally in the bland and innocuous ones? Because the other way around tells me nothing of what the mainstream opinion is likely composed. For all we know, the mainstream opinion is mostly composed of striking, insidious views. This is consistent with bland and innocuous opinions being generally in the mainstream– these opinions may compose a very small portion of the mainstream opinion.

Even with the negation test, I cannot understand this answer. So what if bland, innocuous opinions are NOT generally in the mainstream? What if they are generally in the violent anarchist view? That tells me nothing about how much of the mainstream is composed of bland and innocuous opinions. It could still be the case that mainstream opinions are composed ENTIRELY of bland and innocuous opinions.

I have never felt this frustrated with a questioN!!

I chose (E) because if we negate this, then surely, the argument that the opinions on television are the result of market forces comes into question. Of course, who knows, maybe the executives’ opinions just happen to be reflected in market-directed opinions, but considering how much weaker (B) is, I chose (E).

What am I doing wrong?
Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    For Q5 I think "mainstream" is meant to be considered "watched by most". So a reason to show political talk shows that are bland etc (the overall conclusion) you must assume that this is what most tv watchers want to watch.
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    Q4 is a necessary assumption. If you negate AC(B) by saying no television viewers would "refuse" to watch a show that they knew was going to be controversial then there would be no downside to airing that kind of show. So for the argument to work, "some" people would have to refuse to watch and the station would lose market-share.
Sign In or Register to comment.