#18 - The format of network television news programs

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (D)

In an argument as lengthy as this one, it is important to isolate the central premise for the conclusion without getting side-tracked by redundant information. Simply put, because the format of network television allows advocates of a point of view only 30 seconds to convey their message, regular watching of network TV news increases the tendency to think of public issues in oversimplified terms.

Does the premise provide adequate support for the conclusion? Only if advocates of a point of view represent the only source of information available to viewers. What if reporters often present substantial background information or elaborate on the advocate’s point of view? This would imply that TV does not necessarily oversimplify public issues, and the conclusion would be weakened. Answer choice (D) is therefore correct.

Answer choice (A): Whether viewers have any interest in seeing advocates of opposing views present their positions at length is irrelevant to the author’s conclusion. Even if viewers did not care to watch a lengthy debate, this would be consistent with the conclusion that watching TV leads to the tendency to think of public issues in simplistic terms.

Answer choice (B): Just because watching network TV news programs increases the tendency to think of public issues in oversimplified terms, it is not necessarily true that TV in general must oversimplify. While this answer choice strengthens the argument, it need not be true for the conclusion to follow. What if TV did not, generally speaking, oversimplify? This would still be consistent with the idea a particular type of TV program (network news) leads to oversimplification because of the limited amount of time allotted for an advocate’s point of view. This answer choice is unnecessarily broad and therefore incorrect.

Answer choice (C): At first, this may seem like an attractive answer choice, as it certainly strengthens the conclusion of the argument. However, applying the Assumption Negation technique proves that the conclusion does not rely on it. What if it were possible for television to present public issues in a nuanced way? It is still a fact that the format currently available does not allow for this to happen. Mere possibility to the contrary does not negate the stated fact that network TV news programs allow advocates of a point of view only 30 seconds to convey their message, which leads to oversimplification. Because the logical opposite of this answer choice does not weaken the conclusion, it is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. See discussion above.

Answer choice (E): While this answer choice might strengthen the conclusion that watching TV news programs increases our tendency to oversimplify, we would need to assume that reporter bias amplifies this tendency. Even then, the conclusion does not rely on such an effect to be true. Apply the Assumption Negation technique: even if news reporters introduced no more bias into their stories than did newspaper reporters, it would still possible that watching TV news programs increases our tendency to think about issues in oversimplified terms for some other reason. This answer choice is incorrect.

[GLMDYP]

Hi!
For this question, if (D) is right, why not (C) is right? Because both of them were talking about the possibility of something more detailed happens. Is it because (C) used "not possible" while question stem used "generally"?
Thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi GLMDYP!

You're on the right track. The stimulus says that the format of the network television news programs generally only allows 30 seconds for a point of view to be discussed. But that doesn't mean that it's not possible for them to allow longer, more detailed discussions -- they just don't usually do so.

If we use the Assumption Negation technique and negate answer choice (C) to say that it is possible for television to present issues in a nuanced way, etc. it would not attack the conclusion of our argument. Whether or not it's possible for the medium to present arguments in a careful and detailed way, television doesn't usually do so.

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.

Hope that helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[GLMDYP]

Oh I get it! So the key words here should be "possible" in (C), right? Stating a possibility does not solve the issue, I guess.
Thanks!

[Hazel03]

Hey! why would option 'A'not be correct? I picked option A because if regular news report watchers also read newspapers - the difference the author is trying to create between them is kind of nullified. I understand why D seems better, but wanted a little clarification!

[Jay Donnell]

Hi Hazel03!

With this Assumption question, A brings up a concept (viewer interest) that isn't required for the validity of the argument's conclusion. D brings up a necessary Defender type situation in ensuring that those 30 seconds or so of advocate opinion on the television news programs are in fact the full extent of exposure to the issues available to viewers of the news program.

By running the Assumption Negation Technique, if D were to be removed from the mix it would ensure that the argument would collapse.

In regards to answer choice A, the idea that viewers would be interested in seeing longer available platforms for advocates of certain issues to advance their positions would potentially benefit the argument, but not provide an assumption required by the argument. By running that Assumption Negation Technique, we can remove the idea behind A from the argument without a deleterious effect on the conclusion. Even if the viewers would not be interested in seeing the advocates present in greater length, watching television news programs may very well still "increase the tendency to think of public issues in oversimplified terms."

Remember to use the negation technique whenever possible in an Assumption question, and it can be especially helpful in deciphering between two tricky answers choices.

Hope that helps!

[anureet]

Hello,

I was able to narrow it down to option C and D. Even though, I understand why D is right, I fail to see why C is wrong. If negated, it says that it is possible for television to present public issues in a way that allows for the nuanced presentation of diverse views and a good interchange between advocates of opposite views . If it is possible to do all of this in thirty seconds, it hurts the conclusion that the network television program increases the tendency to think of public issues in over-simplified terms. Clearly, if it is possible to present the ideas in a nuanced diverse way .. they are not being oversimplified and hence it won't increase the tendency of people to think of them in an oversimplified way .

I came back to this question, after a day or two and I am still stuck at it.

Regards
Anureet Bhatti

[Robert Carroll]

Anureet,

The negation of answer choice (C) does not destroy the argument, and that's why it's wrong. If it's possible for television to present information better, what does that do? It doesn't establish any degree of likelihood that it will actually happen. We still have, in the stimulus, that television tends to present information in a way not conducive to deep thought. If it's possible that television could instead act otherwise...would that happen? Many things that are extremely unlikely to change could, in theory, change. It's possible for me to give up eating fish, but it's extremely unlikely it will ever happen. So consider the following argument: "Robert likes eating salmon and believes it to have substantial health benefits that he would not get with most other foods. Therefore, Robert will never give up eating fish." That argument doesn't require us to assume that it's impossible for me to give up fish. So if it's possible I could give up fish, that's not really hurting the argument very much, if at all. And it's certainly not destroying the argument, like the Assumption Negation technique would require of the negation of the correct answer.

Clearly, if it is possible to present the ideas in a nuanced diverse way .. they are not being oversimplified

This is the area of your post where the mistake is made. If it is possible to do something, that does not at all mean it will happen. It's just possible.

Robert Carroll

[darrengao]

I chose A and was so sure of it, reasoned as follows:

The argument proposed a causal relationship: TV Watching Simplified Political Views.
So it rejected the causal arrow pointing the other way. i.e. Simplified Political Views TV Watching. Which can mean people with simplified political views tend to self-select and watch TV, which catered their need, or people in general when watching TV they are looking for simply political discussions. (if/when they want detailed discussion they may turn to newspaper)

Either way, it means the viewers of the network news will lose interest if it drag it out at length. The argument implicitly rejected those possibilities, (not even mentioning them): it assumed the viewers would be interested in watching lengthy discussions on TV, that they were not looking for simply disussions on TV to begin with.

Where is the mistake here. And more importantly how can I avoid it in the future?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Darren,

You're right that the argument is making a causal argument that the specific format of TV news programs is causing viewers to think of public issues in oversimplified terms.

You want to be careful in extrapolating from that and making unwarranted assumptions. We do not know, nor does the author of the argument need to assume, whether viewers would be interested in seeing advocates of opposing views present their views at length as Answer A states.

For example, perhaps there is something specific to television news that lends itself to these short sound bites and people who want to get more nuance prefer to read it in newspapers. The argument never makes a recommendation about what TV news programs should or shouldn't do; it only draws a conclusion about what it is currently doing.

As others have mentioned in the answers above, the best way to tackle an assumption question like this is to use the Assumption Negation Technique. If you're not familiar with the technique, it is discussed in lesson 5 of our course and in chapter 11 of The Logical Reasoning Bible. Using this technique will help differentiate the correct answer from the others as has been discussed in more detail above.