Self-study
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 Argument
The author wants to prove that few people fully understand current events. To get there, he sets up two news sources and what each one provides:
Television gives viewers a sense of direct involvement with events but doesn't provide depth of coverage.
Newspapers provide depth of coverage but no sense of direct involvement.
Full understanding requires both depth of coverage (which gives you appreciation of significance) and a sense of direct involvement. Since few people use news sources other than TV and newspapers, and neither source alone delivers both ingredients, the author concludes that few people ever fully understand current events.
Why Not Both?
The author establishes that TV alone can't do the job and newspapers alone can't do the job. But what about using both? If you watch the evening news and read the newspaper, you could get direct involvement from TV and depth of coverage from the newspaper.
Direct Involvement
Depth of Coverage
Television
✓
✗
Newspapers
✗
✓
Both?
✓
✓
The argument never considers "Both?"
You can think of the flaw here as a "false dichotomy." The author assumes people must rely on only one source or the other, when in reality they can use both.
9.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████
a
treats two things, ███████ ███ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ████████ █████████
This captures the flaw. The author treats TV and newspapers as though consumers must choose one or the other, when there's no reason to think watching TV news prevents someone from also reading a newspaper. If people could do both, they could get direct involvement from TV and depth from newspapers. The argument's conclusion depends on treating these two compatible sources as mutually exclusive.
b
ignores the possibility ████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ███████ █ ████ █████████████ ██ ███████ ██████
It doesn't matter why people watch TV or read newspapers. The argument is about what those sources are capable of providing. Even if someone watches the news purely for entertainment, they can still get a sense of direct involvement from it. The author's reasoning is about what each source delivers, not about consumers' motivations for using them.
c
makes crucial use ██ ███ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████ ████████ ██
Not defining a term isn't a flaw. Arguments don't need to define every term they use. "Depth of coverage" has a clear enough meaning in context, and nothing in the argument hinges on ambiguity in that phrase. The argument is flawed for a completely different reason: it ignores the possibility of combining sources.
d
fails to consider ███ ████████ █████████████ ██ ██████ █ █████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████
Whether direct involvement with tragic events has downsides is a separate issue entirely. The argument is about whether people can fully understand current events, not about whether full understanding or direct involvement is good to have.
e
mistakenly reasons that ████ ███████ █████████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ █ █████ ████████ ██ ████████ ████ ██
The argument doesn't confuse capacity with actual performance. The author isn't saying, for example, "TV can provide direct involvement, therefore it does provide it." The premises straightforwardly state what each source provides and lacks. The flaw is about how those sources relate to each other (the author assumes you can't combine them), not about whether they actually deliver what the argument says they deliver.