#19 - Most people feel that they are being confused by the

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello,

So the authors states that most people are confused by info from broadcast news b/c that info is:

delivered to quickly
or of it being poorly organized

from this the author concludes that it cant be b/c of broadcasts being delivered to quickly b/c typical new broadcasts have a lower information density, that most people can cope with. So then the author states that if its isn't it being delivered to quickly it must be b/c it is poorly organized

So I chose answer choice B b/c when I negated it I got " poor organization in news story makes it POSSIBLE to understand information. Wouldnt this weaken the conclusion?

Can someone please explain how to approach problems like these. And the differences b/w A and B

Thankyou
Sarah

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Sarah,

This is quite subtle, and it benefits from a prephrase. The author gives two possible reasons why people feel confused by the info from broadcast news, dismisses one of the reasons, and concludes that it must be the other. What's the flaw? It's known as a False Dilemma: the author never stated that these are the only two possible reasons! The logical opposite of answer choice (A) suggests that there might be others - the sheer number of broadcasts could be the problem. If true, this would immediately render the conclusion invalid, as it exposes the False Dilemma upon which it is predicated.

Answer choice (B) strengthens the conclusion, but it's not an assumption upon which it depends. In other words, (B) does not HAVE to be true for the conclusion to be logically valid. Poorly organized information makes it difficult to comprehend the information and/or lead to confusion, but it does not need to make it impossible to understand the information. The language is too strong, and is not something we can prove to be an assumption.

Your application of the Assumption Negation Technique is also incorrect. The proper negation of (B) is:

Poor organization of information in a news story does not make it impossible to understand the information.

But, just because it's possible to understand poorly organized information doesn't mean that it's easy for most people to do that. Even if the opposite of (B) is true, most people can still be getting confused. This wouldn't weaken the conclusion.

Remember - assumptions and very similar to Must Be True answers in that they represent claims that can be deductively proven by referring to the stimulus. An assumption is a claim upon which the conclusion depends; something without which the conclusion falls apart. Although (B) strengthens the conclusion, it does not have to be true for the conclusion to be logically valid.

Hope this helps!

[ericj_williams]

Hi Sarah,

This is quite subtle, and it benefits from a prephrase. The author gives two possible reasons why people feel confused by the info from broadcast news, dismisses one of the reasons, and concludes that it must be the other. What's the flaw? It's known as a False Dilemma: the author never stated that these are the only two possible reasons! The logical opposite of answer choice (A) suggests that there might be others - the sheer number of broadcasts could be the problem. If true, this would immediately render the conclusion invalid, as it exposes the False Dilemma upon which it is predicated.

Answer choice (B) strengthens the conclusion, but it's not an assumption upon which it depends. In other words, (B) does not HAVE to be true for the conclusion to be logically valid. Poorly organized information makes it difficult to comprehend the information and/or lead to confusion, but it does not need to make it impossible to understand the information. The language is too strong, and is not something we can prove to be an assumption.

Your application of the Assumption Negation Technique is also incorrect. The proper negation of (B) is:

Poor organization of information in a news story does not make it impossible to understand the information.

But, just because it's possible to understand poorly organized information doesn't mean that it's easy for most people to do that. Even if the opposite of (B) is true, most people can still be getting confused. This wouldn't weaken the conclusion.

Remember - assumptions and very similar to Must Be True answers in that they represent claims that can be deductively proven by referring to the stimulus. An assumption is a claim upon which the conclusion depends; something without which the conclusion falls apart. Although (B) strengthens the conclusion, it does not have to be true for the conclusion to be logically valid.

Hope this helps!

For what it's worth, I also noticed that it goes from COULD be A or B, to saying it IS B because it's not A.

It look like another flaw might be going from COULD be true to MUST be true, which almost seems like it contradicts itself in that regard.