#18 - The format of network television news programs

[darrengao]

Thank you Jeff. Let me organize my thought process using the assumption negation technique. It actually makes me see the mistake.

Choice A says the viewers would still be interested in watching TV if the opposing parties discuss the issue at length. Negation: viewers would not be interested in watching TV if the opposing parties' discussion is long. Then we have viewers want to watch TV with short discussion but not long ones. So people watch TV news for they want short, simple discussions : Simplified Views Watching TV. As opposed to the argument's conclusion: because the TV give short discussions, it makes the viewers think in simple terms: Watching TV Simplified Views. The negation of choice A reverses the causal arrow.

Watching retrospectively I think A is wrong because the existence of a reversed casual relationship does not necessarily make the argument's conclusion unsound. This does make common sense: even if people choosing to watch TV for its simplied views, the simple discussion on TV can still make them think in more simplified terms. So both Simplified view Watching TV and Watching TV Simplified Views can be correct simultaneously. But this didn't click for me at the time, since reversed causal arrow has surely been the correct choice for any question I tried before. But the question before were weaken questions, not necessary assumption question, necessary being the keyword.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi darrengao!

Glad that you found the Assumption Negation technique helpful in understanding why answer choice (A) is incorrect.

Just to emphasize the usefulness of that technique, it's also helpful to apply it to the correct answer choice, (D). For a correct answer choice on an assumption question, the Assumption Negation technique will make the argument fall apart if the negation is plugged into the stimulus as a premise.

Answer choice (D) states, "In network television news reports, it is not usual for a reporter to offer additional factual evidence and background information to develop a story in which opposing views are presented briefly by their advocates." We can omit the word "not" to negate this statement, resulting in, "In network television news reports, it is ... usual for a reporter to offer additional factual evidence and background information to develop a story in which opposing views are presented briefly by their advocates."

If this negated statement were true, it'd make the argument fall apart. Why? Because the conclusion makes a contrast between newspaper reading versus watching TV news, specifically suggesting that TV news conveys information in over-simplified terms like catch phrases and slogans, whereas newspapers are described as leading readers to pursue details. The negation of (D) makes the conclusion no longer follow, because the negation is indicating that TV news does provide viewers with details. If that is true, then it no longer follows that TV news presents public issues in oversimplified terms compared with newspapers.

[piperc]

If we use the Assumption Negation technique on answer choice (D), however, it would say that in network television reports it IS usual for reporters to offer additional factual evidence, opposing views, etc. That would attack the conclusion that watching television causes the public to think of issues in oversimplified terms because it would say that actually television reports don't oversimplify things.

Hello, PS people!

I am having trouble with this question. I just can't for the life of me figure out how D is correct.

I understand that negating answer choice (D) results in the claim that it IS unusual for network television reporters to offer additional information. But I don't follow the explanation after that point. If it were unusual for reporters to give details, wouldn't that fit with the rest of the stimulus and its argument that TV reports lead to viewers oversimplifying important issues? It if is unusual for something to occur, that means that it does not occur most of the time, and so this conclusion, which does not explicitly say that TV news reports always lead to oversimplification (merely that it increases the tendency to oversimplify), would still be valid.

Or is it the fact that there is any possibility of extra detail being given that undoes the argument? That, because extra detail is given in a few instances, the conclusion cannot follow? I just don't understand how the negation of this assumption has much of an impact on the stimulus, save for a slight strengthening -- which is, of course, not what a correct Assumption answer choice should do.

What am I overlooking?

Thank you!
piperc

[Luke Haqq]

Hi piperc!

You comment,

I understand that negating answer choice (D) results in the claim that it IS unusual for network television reporters to offer additional information. But I don't follow the explanation after that point. If it were unusual for reporters to give details, wouldn't that fit with the rest of the stimulus and its argument that TV reports lead to viewers oversimplifying important issues? It if is unusual for something to occur, that means that it does not occur most of the time, and so this conclusion, which does not explicitly say that TV news reports always lead to oversimplification (merely that it increases the tendency to oversimplify), would still be valid.

The phrasing you provide is slightly different from what the assumption negation should be. The original language in answer choice (C) is "it is not usual for a reporter to offer additional factual evidence." The negation of this would be "it is ... usual for a reporter to offer additional factual evidence." Your analysis instead starts by referring to what "is unusual."