Support Television news coverage gives viewers a sense of direct involvement with current events but does not provide the depth of coverage needed for the significance of those events to be appreciated. ███████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ███████ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ████████████ ██████████████ █ ████ █████████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████████ ████ ██ ████████████ ██ █████ ████████████ ███ █ █████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ████ █████ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ██████████ ███████ ███████
The author concludes that few people ever understand current events. He concludes this by pointing out that TV coverage makes viewers feel involved but doesn’t provide the depth needed to appreciate events, newspapers provide depth but no feeling of involvement, understanding an event requires both feelings of involvement with an event and appreciation of its significance, and few people look at news sources other than TV or newspapers.
This argument exhibits the cookie-cutter “false dichotomy” flaw. The author treats watching the news and reading the newspaper as if they’re basically mutually exclusive and assumes few people both watch the news and read the paper. The argument is flawed because it doesn’t consider the possibility that many people look at both the TV and newspaper coverage of an event.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████
treats two things, ███████ ███ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ████████ █████████
ignores the possibility ████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ███████ █ ████ █████████████ ██ ███████ ██████
makes crucial use ██ ███ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████ ████████ ██
fails to consider ███ ████████ █████████████ ██ ██████ █ █████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████
mistakenly reasons that ████ ███████ █████████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ █ █████ ████████ ██ ████████ ████ ██