#19 - The format of network television news programs

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (A).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[grunerlokka]

This is a confusing question, I do not understand how A weakens exactly. Is A correct because the overlap in the two groups messes up any attempt to draw the causal connection in the stimulus' conclusion? On the same note, would E in this case be a correct answer for a Strengthen question, because it ensures no overlap? This vaguely makes sense but I would appreciate an overview of the logic behind this.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi grunerlokka!

Exactly right! Answer choice (A) tells us that regular TV news watchers are also likely to be regular newspaper readers. The premises tell us that regularly watching TV news and regularly reading the newspaper have opposite effects. So if regular TV news watchers tend to do both, how do we know whether they would be more likely to think of things in oversimplified terms (like regular TV news watchers) or whether they would have more of an expectation of careful discussion of public issues (like regular newspaper readers)? Would the opposite effects of both news sources cancel out so that consumers of both think about issues in kind of a medium amount of depth way? Would one effect outweigh the other? We can't be sure. It messes up the causal conclusion the author is trying to make and by messing up the clean dichotomy the author is trying to draw between TV news viewers and newspaper readers. If there is significant overlap between these groups, then it's difficult to say that something is true of one group but not the other.

And, as you note, answer choice (E) offers the flip of this which would strengthen the argument by specifying that these are really two separate groups so they would each be affected by their news sources in opposite ways, strengthening that there is a difference between them in terms of how they think about issues.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[ianngct2]

Not a real statistician here so please don't @ me about the actual math, but I thought I was quite sure that A isn't a correct answer because it is basically saying there is collinearity between 2 variables, so your R estimate (whichever stats method you use notwithstanding, again, I'm not a statistician) is null and void? That sounds plain wrong to me.

I know there are a number of ways to deal with multiple collinearity with categoric vars which some statisticians out there can further elaborate, but on the base level, I'm pretty sure you can just throw out the individuals who both watches cable news and reads newspaper from the sample (correcting for other relevant variables so to not introduce sampling bias, etc etc etc, I didn't pay attention in math). Because at the end of the day, someone who does both is pretty much the same as someone who does neither, and most of the time in most dichotomous vars, a majority of the pop does neither, and that doesn't cause any problems. You can also keep both and just use the effect estimate (I think it is R?) to see if the model complies?

Again, not a statistician so don't @ me, but I thought most of the comparison studies in the world have a lot of collinear problems and I wouldn't imagine anyone bringing collinearity to court and use that to weaken another guys argument.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi ianngct2,

I'm also not a statistician, so I won't @ you about the actual math.

Fortunately, the LSAT doesn't require any expertise in any specialized area of knowledge like statistics. If you're worried about R estimates here, you may be "overthinking" the question in a sense.

The argument in the stimulus provides two different causal relationships. Regularly watching TV news programs causes the expectation of careful discussion of public issues to gradually disappear from viewers' awareness. Regularly reading newspaper stories has the opposite effect.

Answer choice (A) states that "Regular watchers of network television news programs are much more likely (my emphasis) than other people to be habitual readers of newspapers."

If Answer (A) is true, then the conclusion that regular watching of network television increases the trend to think of public issues in oversimplified terms is called into question, and it is even possible (though not certain) that regularly watching TV news programs MAY actually decrease the trend to think of public issues in oversimplified terms by leading some viewers to read newspapers and therefore maintaining the expectation of careful discussion of public issue.

Remember that for a weaken question, the correct answer simply needs to cast doubt on the argument rather than completely disprove it.

[ashpine17]

i thought c would work because then it would mean these programs allow for equal sides so no oversimplification? is 30 seconds for both sides of the argument still too short or something? How do i tell? and for A i took it out because i thought for A it was suggesting the newspaper reading was leading to the readers remembering the details well and it doesn't necessarily say anything about the tv news programs??

[Adam Tyson]

I think you meant answer D, ashpine? Answer D does nothing to counter the idea that regular viewers will think in oversimplified terms. They may have heard the slogans and catch phrases from both sides, but there is no indication that this will lead to an expectation of a careful discussion of the issues. Equal time, in this case, still only means about 30 seconds per side.

And if you did mean answer C, that strengthens the argument, because it adds to the claim that regular viewers will not come to expect a careful discussion of the issues. If TV news can't provide those kinds of discussions between people with diverse views, you're stuck with just the slogans and catch phrases.