Support The format of network television news programs generally allows advocates of a point of view only 30 seconds to convey their message. █████████████ ███████ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██████ █████████ ██████████ ████ █████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ █████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████████████ ██ ███████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ █████████ ████████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ████ ████████ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████████████ ██████
The argument concludes that compared to reading newspapers, watching TV news makes viewers more likely to hold oversimplified views about public issues. This is supported by a whole lot of information about both TV news and newspapers, which we can divide into two causal chains.
Discussing TV news, the argument says that in general, those advocating for a point of view only get 30 seconds to make their point. This causes regular viewers to habitually think about issues in terms of slogans and catchphrases. In turn, this habit causes these regular viewers not to expect a careful discussion of public issues.
Discussing newspapers, the argument says that newspaper stories encourages readers to "pursue details of stories headed by the most important facts." This causes newspaper readers to expect a careful discussion of public issues. The comparison with TV news then supports the argument's conclusion.
The argument assumes which one ██ ███ ██████████
Viewers of network ██████████ ████ ████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████ █████████ ██ ████████ █████ ███████ █████ █████████ ██ ███████
What viewers are interested in doesn't affect the causal argument about the actual effect of watching TV news compared to reading newspapers. (A) does not need to be true for the argument to hold up.
Since it is ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██████ ████ █████ █████████ ██████ ███ ████████ ███ █████ ██████ ████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ███████████ ██████████ ████ █████████████
The idea of images versus words doesn't play a role in the argument, which is our first clue that (B) is not necessary. We also don't need to explain why TV oversimplifies: the argument already explains that advocates get only 30 seconds to present their views.
It is not ████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██████ ██ █ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ████████████ ██ ███████ █████ ███ █ ██████████ ███████████ ███████ █████████ ██ ████████ ██████
(C) is compelling because it speaks to our own ideas of what "careful discussion of public issues" entails. However, the argument doesn't actually discuss these elements of nuance, diverse views, and good-faith discourse.
The other issue with (C) is that it talks about what's possible, whereas the argument focuses on what's typical. If we negated (C) and said that all this was possible, it could still be true that TV news usually doesn't do these things. The argument would still make sense.
In network television ████ ████████ ██ ██ ███ █████ ███ █ ████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ███████ █ █████ ██ █████ ████████ █████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ █████ ██████████
(D) identifies an assumption within the TV news-related causal chain. Just because advocates only get 30 seconds, why does that mean there isn't a more detailed discussion of issues by reporters? This assumption allows the causal chain to make sense, and is therefore necessary.
We can also check by negating (D) and seeing what happens. If we said it is usual for reporters to do all this, then TV news would actually mirror newspapers with their eye-catching heading followed by more details. That would cause the argument to fall apart.
Television news reporters █████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ███████ ████ ██ █████████ ██████████
The argument isn't concerned with bias, but with the depth of discussion and thought that different news formats enourage. Because bias isn't part of the argument, an assumption about bias isn't necessary.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic