#25 - Critic: The Gazette-Standard newspaper recently

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[mokkyukkyu]

Hi,

I thought B is correct because if it's running longer, there would be more possibilities that GS has more errors.
For example,
If we write 1000 pages essay vs 1 page essay, there would be more errors in 1000 pages essay.
I thought this is the similar situation...
Why is B wrong and C correct?

Thank you

[cecilia]

Hi mokkyukkyu - tough question for me as well. I"m by no means an expert but here's my reading on why (B) was wrong:

IT doesn't really matter if the Paper X was in business longer than Paper Y. The argument presented to us speaks of the *current* situation. It is not making a historic determination. The conclusion was about the *recent* state of affairs.

Hope that helps.

[Clay Cooper]

Hi mokkyukkyu,

Cecilia is onto the correct reasoning. The conclusion of this argument is that the Gazette-Standard's increasing its editorial staff is not working to prevent factual errors. Answer choice B, even if it were true, has no bearing on whether or not a staff change at the G-S is having the desired effect.

Answer choice C, on the other hand, weakens the argument by explaining how the comparison to the competitor newspaper - which is the only evidence offered in support of the idea that the change at the G-S isn't working - is misleading, because the competitor paper does not diligently pursue and publish corrections of mistakes.

I hope that helps!

[Aysha.kh]

I don’t understand how c is correct, I thought E was correct. Can you please help.
I considered e as an alternate cause, meaning they have fewer reporting staff then may be its causing problem for editorial staff to work efficiently

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Aysha,

My take on answer choice E is that it makes it harder to understand how the editorial staff could be making so many mistakes, and thus more likely that hiring more of them isn't working (a strengthen answer). I saw it this way: if there are (from the stimulus) more editors and (from answer choice E) fewer reporters, then each editor has to check the work of fewer people. That means it's more likely that having more editors isn't working to fix the problem of factual errors.

Are you assuming that the editorial staff is somehow being forced to pick up additional reporter-type work because of having fewer reporters? If so, that would be importing additional information into the answer choice that we don't have from the stimulus or the answer. That's something the section directions ask us not to do in logical reasoning. Since we'd need that extra information to make answer choice E weaken the conclusion, we can safely reject it.

Answer choice C is correct, because it points out a relevant difference between this newspaper and its competitors. It suggests that the reason the newspaper runs more corrections than its competitors is not that its editors are dropping the ball, but rather that its competitors don't do a very good job of checking their articles and making corrections. By raising that possibility, answer choice C makes it less likely the editors are dropping the ball (undermining the conclusion that the strategy of hiring more editors was a bad one).

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[NJL2022]

Hi PS Staff,

I see why answer choice C is correct, showing the critic's reasoning is flawed. However, is this an overgeneralization because the critic misses an alternate cause for the stated effect ? Or is this an error in the use of evidence? I'm looking to categorize the flaw (if applicable).

I chose answer choice D, but now realize this is more akin to a strengthen answer choice for the critic and does not disprove his/her argument. Am I on the right track with that line of thinking?

Appreciate any clarification you can offer.

[evelineliu]

Hi NJL,

The critic concludes that a newspaper's plan to avoid errors is not working. As evidence, the critic cites that the newspaper acknowledges more errors by printing corrections than a competing newspaper. That means the critic is assuming the greater number of corrections indicates a failure to avoid errors. This overlooks the possibility that the newspaper IS doing a better job at avoiding errors--it also does a better job at admitting when it does make an error. This overlooked possibility would weaken the critic's argument.

(D) is almost the opposite of what we are looking for. If the newspaper uses more editors and STILL has to print more corrections, the critic's claim that the paper's plan isn't working is actually helped, not weakened.

Best,
Eveline

[NJL2022]

Hi NJL,

The critic concludes that a newspaper's plan to avoid errors is not working. As evidence, the critic cites that the newspaper acknowledges more errors by printing corrections than a competing newspaper. That means the critic is assuming the greater number of corrections indicates a failure to avoid errors. This overlooks the possibility that the newspaper IS doing a better job at avoiding errors--it also does a better job at admitting when it does make an error. This overlooked possibility would weaken the critic's argument.

(D) is almost the opposite of what we are looking for. If the newspaper uses more editors and STILL has to print more corrections, the critic's claim that the paper's plan isn't working is actually helped, not weakened.

Best,
Eveline

Got it. Need to just boil down the CONCL a bit more simply to find the correct ans, and focus less on categorization of the incorrect ans choices. Thanks!

[lemonade42]

Hello,

I'm confused on this stimulus and the reasoning that the critic uses for their conclusion.
The author thinks that the staff increase did not help avoid errors. They support this by using the evidence that there are more corrections compared to the competitor.

I can see how maybe he's assuming that more corrections means more errors are being made. But I don't understand how a comparison to a competitor would show that the staff increase internal to the company is not working. Because I'm thinking, okay just because there are more corrections than its competitors, the staff could still worked to catch more errors. Is he assuming that more corrections means more errors and the staff failed? It seemed like was too many things were missing so I was getting confused trying to understand the stimulus.

For (B), I was thinking a longer business meant more total errors could have been in the entire history of the company. But that doesn't show how the staff is working to prevent errors. So (B) is wrong.

But if (C) is true, how does it show that the staff increase is working to catch more errors? To me, it just sounds like they are having more corrections in general. And doesn't relate to how the staff increase helped out or not in finding errors.

For (D), If there were more editors, wouldn't that mean there would mean more eyes on the articles, so there would be less errors being made. Meaning that the staff increase is working?

and for (E), the reporting staff seemed very random to me, so I didn't choose it. In a response above, it was said that "if there are more editors and fewer reporters, then each editor has to check the work of fewer people". But I don't see how that would mean "it's more likely that having more editors isn't working to fix the problem of factual errors."