#24 - Editorial: Last year, many polls found that most people in our country claimed to be

[Luke Haqq]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A): This doesn't add much to the stimulus and largely just overlaps with it. If this were added to the stimulus, it still leaves us wondering how people wish themselves to be perceived, which is central to the conclusion.

Answer choice (B): This also doesn't get to the gap between the premises and conclusion. The conclusion is that the premises indicate that "people often portray themselves as they wish to be perceived, rather than as they actually are." There's nothing in the premises indicating how people wish they are perceived, so this is a new element to the conclusion. Answer choice (B) doesn't mention this new element.

Answer choice (C): Answer choices (C), (D), and (E) all include some material about how people portray themselves verses how they actually are, so they potentially fill the gap between the premises and new material in the conclusion. This can be a good reason to bring in the Assumption Negation technique; it's usually too time consuming to apply it to all five answer choices on a given question, but it can be useful once one has narrowed down the options. The Assumption Negation technique involves negating an answer choice and plugging it back into the stimulus. If that addition makes the argument fall apart/weakens it, then the answer choice is an assumption on which the argument relies. Negated, answer choice (C) would be "Last year, [none] of the people who responded to polls in the editorialist's country did not believe that in their responses they were portraying themselves as they actually were." Inserted, this doesn't make the argument fall apart. While (C) includes some of the right language, this ultimately doesn't connect it to unwillingness to watch TV news shows.

Answer choice (D): Negated, this would be "Last year, [at least some] people in the editorialist's country who responded to polls about their views about television news programs portrayed themselves as they actually were." Even if some portrayed themselves as the actually were, we're still left wondering how this relates to the mentioned polls. Answers (C) and (D) thus contain some of the right material, but aren't essential assumptions.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Negated, this would be "Last year, [no] people responding to polls in the editorialist's country wished to be perceived as unwilling to watch television news programs." If no people wished to be perceived as unwilling to watch, the argument would fall apart, because the argument is that certain polls indicate that they wish to be perceived as unwilling.

[clbrogesr]

Could someone explain why B is incorrect?

I chose B twice (one on the first go and again on blind review). The author's argument is that people claimed in polls that they were no longer willing to watch television coverage of scandals, but then viewership for television coverage of scandals increased. Subsequently, the author concludes that people portrayed themselves (in polls) as they wish to be perceived, not as they actually behaved.

I see two necessary assumptions here. First, that people wished to be perceived as not watching scandalous television coverage. But also, second, that the people who told the pollsters that they would be unwilling to watch such programs continued to watch those programs after.

The reason I chose answer B is because it offers that second assumption. If you negate it (i.e. - the people who told pollsters that they were unwilling to watch scandalous television did not go on to watch scandalous television after) then the author's conclusion that they misrepresented themselves falls apart.

E appeared tempting - but it also appeared too broad. The author's conclusion does not have to do with ALL television, just television coverage of scandals. I see why E is correct, but can someone explain why B is not?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi clbrogesr,

The big problem with answer choice (B), and your proposed assumption, is that we don't know the viewership of these shows. Yes, the ratings soared. But where did they start, and where did they end? We don't know if they started with a viewership of 10 people and soared to 1,000, or if they started with 10,000 viewers and ended in the millions. Because the size of the viewership is an unknown, we can't say that they assume almost everyone in the polls was watching those shows. You can think of this as a numbers and percentage problem. The stimulus talked about a percentage concept (TV ratings) and the answer choice gives you information about a numerical concept (almost all refers to a number of people).

Answer choice (E), on the other hand, is required. The passage makes a pretty big leap in the conclusion. The premises support that there is a difference between the polling and the ratings on specific TV shows. However, the premises don't tell us WHY there's that difference. The conclusion tries to give a reason---people are answering how they wish to be perceived. We have nothing in the premises to support that. It could be for many different reasons. Maybe people are answering not how they wish to be perceived but how they wish the world was. That's why we need an assumption to bridge that gap.

Hope that helps!

[jojapaych]

Yes, I made the same mistake twice myself. I think to put it simply, the stimulus says "people OFTEN portray themselves..." while (B) says "almost EVERYONE." The two are not necessarily the same--"often" is cushier and potentially encompasses more than "most" or "almost." We don't have any other context cues, so the most basic meaning we can rely on for "often" is just at least sometimes. It can include most; but it doesn't have to. That's why (B) isn't necessary.

[Adam Tyson]

Exactly, jojapaych! "Almost everyone" is too strong, and we should instead be looking for a softer answer that uses words like "at least some."

[impawsible]

Hello! I'm a bit confused with demonstrating to myself that E was the answer. I've laid out reasons for ruling out A-D but not sure if they're correct. Could someone please check if my reasoning behind eliminating the answer choices below is correct? Also for the choices I negated, did I execute them correctly?

A) Stimulus: Everyone who claimed in polls is tired of obsession also claimed unwilling to watch
INCORRECT: Repeat of stimulus - it already joins the results of claiming to be tired AND unwilling to watch news programs. Having *everyone combined for both characteristics isn't a necessary assumption however because they don't have to 100% overlap to prove the conclusion. Even if negated as Some who claimed tired of obsession, also claimed unwilling to watch, the TV ratings would answer for the subset of pollers that did claim they were tired of the obsession and claimed unwilling to watch.

B) Stimulus: Almost everyone tired + unwilling continued watching news
Negation: Some/None tired + unwilling continued watching
INCORRECT: Most pollers could still have continued watching which means the argument is not weakened by the negation.

C) Stimulus: At least some responded to polls did not believe that they were portraying themselves as they actually were
INCORRECT: Whether or not the pollers believed that they were portraying themselves as they actually were does not weaken argument because stimulus says that they "might not be aware" they are doing so.

D) Stimulus: None who responded portrayed as they actually were
Negation: Some who responded portrayed as they actually were
INCORRECT: If some portrayed as they actually were, this does not weaken the argument since most could have still portrayed as they want to be perceived + are not actually who they are.

E) Stimulus: At least some wished to be perceived as unwilling to watch programs
Negation: No poller wished to be perceived as unwilling to watch programs.
CORRECT: The argument claimed that these pollers were unwilling to watch yet watched these programs (because the ratings of TV were high). However, if pollers actually did not want themselves to be perceived as unwilling, this destroys the argument's conclusion that poll answers show how people want to be perceived.

Thanks so much in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

That's a good analysis of every answer choice here, impawsible! I have nothing to add. Great job!

[mab9178]

Hi,

Just checking on the negation to E, which states: "Last year, at least some people responding to polls in the editorialist's country wished to be perceived as unwilling to watch television news programs."

Negation: Last year, none of the people responding to polls in the editorialist's country wished to be perceived as unwilling to watch television news programs.
Correct?

Analysis, well, if none wished to perceived as unwilling to watch television news programs, then it must follow when they said they were unwilling to watch such programs, they were portraying themselves as they actually are rather than as they wish to be perceived which contradicts the conclusion.

And since the negation causes the argument to fall apart by directly contradicting the conclusion, then it must follow that E, in its original non-negated form, is the correct answer-choice.
Is my analysis correct?

Please and thank you
Mazen

[Adam Tyson]

Correct! That's exactly how the Assumption Negation Technique is supposed to work, and the correct negation of "some" is "none" (rather than "some did not", which is a common error made by students in this situation, since "some do" and "some do not" are not in opposition to each other but can both be true).