#17 - Critics worry that pessimistic news reports about the

[Administrator]

Question #17: Must Be True, SN. The correct answer choice is (D)

The stimulus contains a set of opinions and facts. No overt conclusion is presented. When simplified and re-ordered, the facts and opinions are as follows:

Opinions:

• Critics worry that negative reporting about the economy cause people to lose confidence in it, which ultimately harms the economy.
• Journalists respond that they cannot worry about the effects of their work.

Facts:

• Everyone has direct experience of the economy.
• We defer to journalists only on matters of which we have no direct experience.

Let’s analyze the facts first. The second fact (last sentence in the stimulus) contains a conditional relationship, which—when simplified—can be diagrammed as follows:

• Defer to journalists NO direct experience

According to the first sentence, however, everyone has direct experience of the economy. This triggers the contrapositive of the conditional statement above, suggesting that people will not be influenced by journalists on matters concerning the economy:

• Direct experience with the economy NOT defer to journalists on the economy

Clearly, then, the critics whose views are described in the first sentence have nothing to worry about: Negative reporting about the economy will have little, if any, effect on people’s confidence in the economy. This prephrase agrees with answer choice (D). If you had trouble with this question, you probably had difficulty distinguishing causal from conditional statements, and/or facts from opinions. Make no mistake about it: intertwining these concepts in the same stimulus was meant to be a source of confusion.

Answer Choice (A): This answer choice is attractive, but incorrect. The issue is not whether the economy is affected by the extent of people’s confidence in it, but rather whether negative journalistic reporting has any effect on that confidence—the critics believe that it does, whereas the facts suggest otherwise. For this answer choice to be correct, its wording would need to be tweaked as follows: “critics who think that the economy is affected by pessimistic news about it are wrong.” Read closely!

Answer Choice (B): This is a Mistaken Reversal of the conditional relationship in the last sentence. Lack of direct experience is presented as a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for deferring to journalists. The mere fact that people do not have direct experience with foreign policy does not automatically guarantee that they would be influenced by the pessimistic news about it.

Answer Choice (C): This is the Opposite answer choice. As discussed above, pessimistic news about the economy are unlikely to have any effect on people’s confidence in it. Consequently, they are unlikely to harm the economy.

Answer Choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, as it agrees with our prephrase above.

Answer Choice (E): This answer choice is far too broad to be supported by the stimulus. While journalists need not worry about their reporting’s effects on the economy, reports on other subjects could easily touch upon issues of which the average citizen has no direct experience. Such reports could have a potentially negative effect on the average citizen, and could be a cause for concern.

[Sara Gold]

Good morning,
Could someone please explain to me why D "News reports about the economy are unlikely to have a significant effect on people's opinions about the state of the economy" is correct over B "Pessimistic news reports about such matters as foreign policy, of which people do not have experience every day, are likely to have a negative impact." ?

I can understand why D might be correct but I'm having trouble ignoring B.
Thanks!
Sara

[bricbas]

If you had trouble with this question, you probably had difficulty distinguishing causal from conditional statements, and/or facts from opinions. Make no mistake about it: intertwining these concepts in the same stimulus was meant to be a source of confusion.

I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around how a difficulty distinguishing causal and conditional reasoning from one another affects a wrong answer in this particular instance, and I guess this is a huge deal as it is always brought up. Is there any way you could give me a step by step scenario where mistaking causality for conditionality or the reverse might end up in a wrong answer? What would constitute a right answer for conditional reasoning but not for causal reasoning and visa versa? I kind of understand, but that's unacceptable, I want to live and breathe this concept.

[Clay Cooper]

Hi bricbas,

Thanks for your question. Hopefully I can clarify somewhat.

The admin explanation has pointed out to us that this stimulus includes fact and opinion as well as causal and conditional reasoning. Note, though, that in this case the causal reasoning is confined to the opinions; the facts contain only conditional reasoning, and do not purport to name any causes or effects (check out the breakdown above, it's spot-on). So I would focus more on the fact/opinion dichotomy than the cause/effect dichotomy here.

Remember that this is a must be true question - which means that we need to prove that our answer choice is true, and opinions are unlikely to help us much in this regard. Facts, however, are perfect - and we should focus on them, even if they do not name any causes or any effects.

As for the confusion between causal and conditional reasoning, you can think of causal reasoning as a subset of conditional reasoning (and track it with similar diagramming). For instance, if rain causes puddles, then

R --> P

or, more generally,

Cause --> Effect

Anyway, I would just reiterate to you that the fact/opinion dichotomy here is more important than the conditional/causal question. We can basically disregard what critics worry about or how journalists respond to those critics - none of that is ever going to prove anything (that isn't about what critics or journalists think).

I hope that helps. Keep working hard.

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I am having trouble understanding why E is wrong. According to the text, if journalists want to do well they cannot worry about the effects of their work. Thus, it seems to follow that they "need not be deeply concerned" about their reporting's effects on the average citizen. Is this not within the scope of the "effects of their work". It seems completely within the purview of the text. Please clarify.

Respectfully,

Micah

[David Boyle]

Hello,

I am having trouble understanding why E is wrong. According to the text, if journalists want to do well they cannot worry about the effects of their work. Thus, it seems to follow that they "need not be deeply concerned" about their reporting's effects on the average citizen. Is this not within the scope of the "effects of their work". It seems completely within the purview of the text. Please clarify.

Respectfully,

Micah

Hello Micah,

While what you say makes some sense, still, D is a stronger answer, seeing everything said above, and the whole pattern of the stimulus.
Also, a journalist could be deeply concerned about the average citizen, but may have other concerns than the effects of her work. E.g., maybe the journalistic integrity of the newspaper is more important than any short-term (or even long-term) effects on average citizens. Maybe the journalist is even more deeply concerned about the newspaper's quality than about effects on average citizens. (Moreover, maybe journalists are more deeply concerned about effects on vulnerable citizens, e.g., homeless people, than about effects on average citizens.)

Hope this helps,
David

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I think I can see your point of view now. The journalist were responding to the criticism specific to the economy in the text and it would be too broad to say that they don't need to be concerned about effects on the well being of average citizens.

- Micah

[jenna_d]

I'm having trouble visualizing how B is wrong - isn't it: Defer to Journalists (and receive pessimistic news) --> no experience --> negative experience (or where does that fit in) so thus B would be Pessimistic news --> no experience --> negative impact? I'm a bit lost on the diagramming. Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Simplifying this might help, Jenna. The stimulus tells us in the last sentence that if people defer to journalists, they must have no direct experience. That's this:

Defer Direct Experience

That's the overriding principle here, which can be applied to any topic - foreign affairs, the economy, sports, the movie review, etc.

Answer B attempts to apply that principle to foreign policy, but it does so by making a Mistaken Reversal:

Direct Experience Defer

In other words, it is saying that where we do not have direct experience (as with foreign policy) then we will defer to journalists (believing the pessimistic reports and being thereby harmed somehow). Just because deference indicates that we do not have experience does not prove that having no experience will guarantee our deference!

I hope that clears it up for you!

[Trying My Best]

Hello, I eliminated answer B on the grounds that it was a hypothetical scenario that we cannot know for sure would carry the same logic. Similar to letters A & D on question 13 on this same LR section, I thought that current answers to MBT questions will typically involve content focused on the stimulus given. I didn't even consider the mistaken negation explained in this thread. Is my logic involving applying logic in MBT stimuli to hypotheticals as strong grounds for removal (with exceptions) incorrect?