#5- Specific Reference, Must Be True

[garbicll]

Hello,

I am having a hard time understanding why E is correct.

I chose D because the third paragraph states "(the public) should be accorded the right to challenge the renewal of the station’s broadcasting license". Because of this I believed that this supported the idea that the publics opinions should be voiced when there is a renewal of a license. Is it wrong because the language in D is too strong with "must"?

I suppose I assumed also that because the FCC already appeals to the economic broadcasters that they would already be considered, therefore it wouldn't be a needed added element in the answer choice.

thank you!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi garbicll!

I'd be happy to discuss answer choices (D) and (E) for this question. First, this can be categorized both as a must be true question, and also as a specific reference type of reading comprehension question because it directs the test taker to a particular part of the passage.

Answer choice (D) states, "When evaluating the performance of a broadcaster applying for a license renewal, the FCC must obtain information about the preferences of the public." I think your intuition is correct, namely, that the word "must" is a point against this answer choice. The question asks us about the case discussed in the 3rd paragraph, so it is important to look back to confirm what the case is about. The case provides a venue for the public to have a voice in an arena that used to be only industry and the government. Answer choice (D) is effectively saying that the government must obtain public input before granting any license renewal, which is stronger than what the case actually guarantees. For example, there might be a little-known, unoffensive broadcaster seeking a license and there simply isn't any public input one way or the other about the person.

Rather, the case stands for the weaker proposition that the public can offer input, again, in a domain that had previously only contained the voices of industry and government. This comes across in answer (E), "In FCC licensing proceedings, parties representing community preferences should be granted standing along with those with an economic interest in broadcasting." In other words, if they want to have a voice, the case secures that they can now have the opportunity to do so. This is supported especially by the passage's language around lines 47-51, which you correctly looked to: it held that the church in that case "should be accorded the right to challenge the renewal of the station's broadcasting license. [More broadly, t]he case established a formidable precedent for opening up to the public the world of broadcasting." Again, this opening up of the broadcasting world to the public involves creating an option for them to provide input, rather than a requirement that the government seek it.