#6 - Paretan newspaper editor: David Salino assails as

[voodoochild]

Experts,
Any thoughts on why B is incorrect?

If I negate B, "Newspapers ought to consider the consequences of their coverage in deciding what to report" -- this looks like a good weakener. I am a little suspicious of "ought" esp. in assumption problem. I don't think that "ought" equates to "must", but I think it's a synonym of "should."

I am trying to think why B) is wrong. Please help me if I am wrong.

The conclusion of the argument is not about "consequences of reporting." It's "Consequences of reporting are not editor's fault." Also, B) talks about "in deciding what to report" -- the argument is about the consequences of reporting after the reporting is done and not about "deciding what to report"

Any thoughts?

[Steve Stein]

Hi Voodoo,

You're right, that's a good negation of answer choice B, but the author's conclusion is that the paper can't be blamed for the consequences of its accurate reports--this is distinct from the question of whether or not papers should consider the consequences of their reporting decisions.

I hope that's helpful--please let me know. Thanks!

~Steve