#4 - Must Be True, Author’s Perspective

[Nina]

First of all, could I have a question regarding the understanding of this passage?
in line 33, "the real reason for denying the church a hearing was more like the prospect that citizens' groups...would begin to enter the closed worlds..." Does the real reason refers to "the FCC has accepted the church's contentions with regard to misconduct on the part of the broadcasters"?

As for question 4, i was not quite sure about the preciseness of the word "effective": since during the church's first appeal in 1967, "the hearing was to little avail", and until the church's second appeal has the judge taken "the unprecedented step". Can this process be considered as "effective"?

and why is answer A incorrect?

Many thanks!

[Steve Stein]

Hi Nina,

In that one, the FCC tried to put off the issue raised by the church--the FCC didn't provide a hearing, but limited the license of the misbehaving broadcasters to probationary--based on this limitation, the FCC claimed that no hearing was necessary.

But this raised the question, why even give a probationary license to a misbehaving broadcaster?

The real reason for denying the church, says the author, was to keep government and industry behind closed doors, away from the public.

As for question 4, you're right, the first appeal was to little avail, but of course the story didn't end there. The author's point in relating these events is to show that a citizen's group can be effective in bringing change (...eventually!).

The issue with answer choice A is that there is simply no way to know what might have happened without the UCC pursuing the case--perhaps, for example, another group might have sought to represent Jackson's African American population.

I hope that's helpful! Let me know whether everything is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[Adam Tyson]

Hi Nina. You are absolutely right about the first issue you raised - the FCC apparently claimed that the reason they did not offer the Church a chance to speak at a hearing was because they had already decided that the church was correct, but our author says the real reason they didn't grant the hearing was to keep such groups from inserting themselves into the established order of things.

The statement in question 4, answer C, deals with the ultimate effect of the legal case brought by the church. It's not saying that they were effective right away - rather, that through their persistence they ultimately prevailed, proving that such groups can ultimately be effective at protecting public interests.

A fails our "fact test" in that the passage never tells us what the FCC knew prior to the church bringing the case. We know that the FCC apparently didn't care about the station's abusive policies, but we don't know what they knew or when they knew it. They may have known all along and not minded, or maybe they found out only because the chruch brought it to their attention and then chose to ignore it. There's no evidence in the passage to tell us either way.

Hope that helps!

Adam

[Adam Tyson]

Two answers for the price of one! Steve and I are apparently answering questions in tandem right now.

[Nina]

Hey Steve and Adam,

Thank you both so much for your detailed analysis! Very very helpful

[ataraxia10]

Why is D incorrect?

[James Finch]

Hi Ataraxia,

The issue with (D) is that it is a very strong claim, requiring equally strong evidence to back it up. The passage only deals with one government entity, the FCC, (although one could argue that federal courts would also count) and only one specific case and its outcome. That outcome is critical; the final paragraph explains that due to the case mentioned earlier in the passage, the public can now intervene in licensing hearings to voice its opinion over a whole range of issues. These interventions may then lead the FCC to decide to regulate the "individual businesses" (TV stations) by not renewing their broadcasting licenses. So if anything, (D) would be an Opposite Answer, as the passage would seem to describe a process of reforming a government entity to allow its use by the public to regulate private businesses.

Hope this clears things up!