- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Oct 19, 2022
- Tue Sep 10, 2024 1:36 pm
#108931
Hi sxzhao,
Your original choice of Answer D and spotting the logical gap in the argument between "objective" and "avoid offending" was correct.
As for Answer A, the problem is that the negation of Answer A does not actually weaken the argument at all, much less destroy it.
The argument is about the contrast in journalistic standards, and (particularly relevant here), why the goal of not offending readers was the purpose behind newspapers' traditional standard of objectivity.
At first glance, it may seem like the negation of Answer A "journalists at traditional newspapers are NOT as partisan as those working for newer outlets" provides an alternate explanation for the contrast in journalistic standards. The problem, however, is that even if the negation of Answer A were true, it is completely consistent with the explanation offered in the argument.
In other words, if newspapers developed the standard of objective journalism for the specific reason of avoiding offending readers (i.e. business reasons), that could also explain why those newspapers hired journalists who were more objective (or why the journalists themselves decided to write in a more objective way, since that is what was expected of them.) Similarly, if newer media outlets developed a more partisan standard due to a desire to differentiate themselves in a crowded marketplace (i.e. business reasons), that could also explain why they hire journalists who are less objective/more partisan.
What would have worked as a defender assumption would have been an answer stating that the differences in the journalistic standards were not caused by differences in the ethics of the journalists themselves (or some other non-business reason) as this would have eliminated a possible alternate cause.
Your original choice of Answer D and spotting the logical gap in the argument between "objective" and "avoid offending" was correct.
As for Answer A, the problem is that the negation of Answer A does not actually weaken the argument at all, much less destroy it.
The argument is about the contrast in journalistic standards, and (particularly relevant here), why the goal of not offending readers was the purpose behind newspapers' traditional standard of objectivity.
At first glance, it may seem like the negation of Answer A "journalists at traditional newspapers are NOT as partisan as those working for newer outlets" provides an alternate explanation for the contrast in journalistic standards. The problem, however, is that even if the negation of Answer A were true, it is completely consistent with the explanation offered in the argument.
In other words, if newspapers developed the standard of objective journalism for the specific reason of avoiding offending readers (i.e. business reasons), that could also explain why those newspapers hired journalists who were more objective (or why the journalists themselves decided to write in a more objective way, since that is what was expected of them.) Similarly, if newer media outlets developed a more partisan standard due to a desire to differentiate themselves in a crowded marketplace (i.e. business reasons), that could also explain why they hire journalists who are less objective/more partisan.
What would have worked as a defender assumption would have been an answer stating that the differences in the journalistic standards were not caused by differences in the ethics of the journalists themselves (or some other non-business reason) as this would have eliminated a possible alternate cause.