#14 - Some critics claim that the power of the media to

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)

To understand the reasoning flaw in the argument, consider the logical structure of its premises and the conclusion:

• Premise (1): If the media conveyed a range of opinions narrower than that found among consumers, its power would be too great (N PG).
  
  Premise (2): The media does not convey a narrower range of opinions (N)
  
  Conclusion: The media does not have too much power to impose its opinions on the public (PG)

You should notice that the conclusion contains a Mistaken Negation: just because the media does not convey a narrower range of opinions than that found among consumers, this does not automatically mean that its powers are properly limited. A quick look at the five answer choices reveals that only answer choice (C) contains the description of Mistaken Negation. Answer choice (C) is therefore correct.

Answer choice (A): Since the author does not attack the critics’ character or motives in attempting to discredit their position, there is no Source Argument flaw in the reasoning. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): For the author to take something for granted, she must be making an unwarranted (but unstated) assumption that the statement in question is a true fact. Here, the statement that the media purveys an appropriate range of opinions is a given: indeed, it is the central premise of the argument and not an unstated assumption. This answer choice is therefore incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. See discussion above.

Answer choice (D): While the exposure of popular opinion in the media is a central issue in this argument, the author does not rely on popular opinion to substantiate her conclusion. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): The author never explicitly or implicitly suggest that it is desirable for a wide range of popular opinions to receive media exposure; she merely stated that the exposure of popular opinion in media is as wide as the range of opinion found among consumers. This answer choice is incorrect.

[kristinajohnson@berkeley.edu]

Premise: "Some critics claim that the power of the media to impose opinions upon people concerning the important issues of the day is too great." (power of the media to impose opinions is too great)

Conclusion: "But this is not true." (power of the media to impose opinions is NOT too great)

Premise: "It [power of the media to impose opinions is too great?] would be true if on major issues the media purveyed a range of opinion narrower than that found among consumers of media." (IF media purveyed a range of opinion narrower THEN power of the media to impose opinions is too great?)

"The fact that this assumption [media purveyed a range of opinion narrower?] is untrue shows the critics' claim [power of the media to impose opinions is too great?] to be false." (IF NOT media purveyed a range of opinion narrower THEN NOT power of the media to impose opinions is too great?)

Is this correct?

(Correct) answer choice C says, "The argument takes for granted that if the truth of one claim [IF media purveyed a range of opinion narrower] implies the truth of a second claim [THEN power of the media to impose opinions is too great], then the falsity of the first claim [IF NOT media purveyed a range of opinion narrower] proves the falsity of the second claim [THEN NOT power of the media to impose opinions is too great]." This would be a mistaken negation.

Is this correct?

Thank you.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi kristina,

Your explanation looks really good with one small (but still noteworthy) change.

The first sentence in the argument, "Some critics claim that the power of the media to impose opinions upon people concerning the important issues of the day is too great" is not a premise, but is actually the opposing viewpoint. In other words, that sentence conveys the idea that this argument is designed to attack/refute.

Premises are statements that support the conclusion, so statements that don't actually support the conclusion are not considered premises. In some cases, these statements can be simply background information which provide context for the argument but do not actually support the conclusion. In other cases, like this one, they are the opposing argument. While this distinction isn't necessarily critical to answering this question, such a distinction can be very important in Method of Reasoning - Argument Part questions, in which these differences are directly tested.