#18 - Blogger: Traditionally, newspapers have taken

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[srcline697@gmail.com]

Hello,
So I wanted to check my reasoning on this necessary assumption question. I'm still a little shaky.
Conclusion: todays newer media are more inclined to try to create a stir with openly partisan reporting.

So we're looking for an a.c. that is an assumption that makes this argument true! that would be D. unegated D would explain why newer media uses these tactics...b/c they are possibly trying to redefine the original objectivity held by newspapers. Negated this would read as : newspapers have regarded objective reporting as MORE likely to offend people than openly partisan reporting. This would destroy the argument that its the newer media that distorts objective of journalism. I guess D rules out another cause?

Is this correct?
Thankyou
Sarah

[Eric Ockert]

Hi Sarah!

Careful with your prephrase. For an assumption question, the answer doesn't "make" the argument true (that's a Justify the Conclusion standard). You are looking for a statement (not even necessarily the statement, as most arguments have multiple assumptions being made) that is required by the argument.

Here the author says that the most important objective for traditional newspapers was to avoid offending potential readers and for this reason they adopted the standard of objectivity. But why? That only makes sense if we assume that objectivity is less offensive than partisan reporting. This is what answer (D) gives us.

When doing the Assumption Negation Technique, the negation of answer (D) would actually be "Newspapers have not regarded objective reporting as less likely to offend..." Your negation is more of a polar opposite. Both versions would weaken the argument here, but you want to be careful that you are taking the logical opposite of the answer choice, not the polar opposite. There will be times where the polar opposite weakens, but the logical opposite doesn't (which would indicate an incorrect answer).

Hope that helps!

[younghoon27]

May have an explanation on why it is D over C? is C out of scope and to much of a broad answer choice?

[Adam Tyson]

That's one way to look at answer C, younghoon27 - the answer relies on information that is not provided in the stimulus. We don't know anything about what is happening to traditional newspapers. We only know that newer media do things differently, and the author thinks it has to do with their business model. The author doesn't need to make any assumptions about the relative popularity of traditional newspapers or of newer media.

[ashpine17]

Why is B problematic? I thought what people's perception was of objective versus partisan reporting was important. If people were indifferent or preferred partisan reporting, wouldn't that weaken the whole argument about the type of reporting being a business decision?

[ashpine17]

How could it have been the case that it was a business decision to choose objective reporting over partisan if people don't care or may even prefer partisan reporting? I guess I assumed business decisions have to be good ones, but is that unreasonable? Because I assume business refers to how readable the articles are to readers. Someone help please.

[Robert Carroll]

ashpine,

Newspapers' current business strategy is to be partisan. It's at least intuitively plausible that they employ that strategy because they think it will attract readers - so why would we need to assume that people prefer objectivity, like answer choice (B) says? Newspapers have adopted different strategies at different times. If only one of those strategies is actually likely to increase readership, then the other strategy is bad and newspapers should probably not do it. We'd then need to explain why they're doing something so contrary to their interests. An answer choice that merely poses us another, potentially more difficult, puzzle is not going to be an assumption necessary for the argument.

If answer choice (B) is true, why have newspapers changed to an inferior strategy?

Robert Carroll

[sxzhao]

I originally chose D for the apparent gap in reasoning but upon reading the stimulus a second time I switched my answer to A, here's my reasoning:

The conclusion of the argument is about how to understand the shift, and the author claims it's becasue of different business strategy. Everything stated after this claim is to provide support for this conclusion.
So what happens if we negate A: journalists at traditional newspapers are NOT as partisan as those working for newer outlets - viola, a completely different explanation for the shift from what the author claims to be.

Based on my experience of dealing with NA questions, an answer that completely and directly destroys the argument wins and to me that's choice A. Please help correct my line of reasoning

[cd1010]

Hello sxzhao -- I'm not a PowerScore instructor, but I will attempt to answer your question (and hopefully exercise my reasoning skills as well!)

Basically, I don't think that negating (A) has the effect that you think it has.

My breakdown of the stimulus is --- There was a "traditional" situation when newspapers believed that good journalism required objectivity. Today, newer media adopt openly partisan reporting. Why? Here is the conclusion: This shift is because of business strategy demands. Newer media need to compete in a marketplace, and therefore adopt openly partisan reporting. For traditional newspapers, their most important objective was to not offend people, so then they chose 'objectivity' (rather than open partisanship).

I found it difficult to prephrase this Q during timed conditions. But analyzing this now, I think the reason why the question is difficult is because the last sentences has a premise-subconclusion structure. (Premise: Most important objective was to avoid offending potential readers; Sub-conclusion: The standard of objectivity developed primarily among newspapers with no serious rivals). Why is objectivity the way to not offend? D works by linking the gap.

Based on your post, I wonder if the strong prephrase that you had revolved around a causal analysis of the conclusion (hence, looking for an alternate cause to "business strategies"). But the correct answer does not go here.

Without doing anything to A, at the outset, it seems to contradict the argument. It seems to say that even traditional reporters were not objective, and are actually just as partisan as the ones today. If this is the case, then, the contrast between traditional newspaper journalists vs today's media disappears. How could that then be an assumption of the argument? An assumption of the argument would not say that the situation that the argument is trying to explain in the first place does not exist.

The negation of the assumption would not work by saying that the situation (contrast between traditional vs new) does not exist, but by countering the explanation of the contrast. I think D works because when you negate it, then it opens the possibility of a different reason for traditional newspapers' 'objectivity', which the argument then relies on to explain traditional newspapers' contrast with new media.

Negation of A is, as you say, "journalists at traditional newspapers are NOT as partisan as those working for newer outlets". Or, in other words, journalists at traditional newspapers are more objective than those working for newer outlets. But, this is precisely what the stimulus describes as the current situation. So then it wouldn't negate the argument.

I had trouble with this as well, so hopefully someone can respond and check my reasoning!