#17 - Economist: Some critics of the media have contended

[snowy]

Is answer choice A also wrong because it doesn't specify how one's perception is changed? i.e. directly or inversely?
(Basically analogous to Question 19 answer choice B in that it doesn't specify what the "change" is/in what direction)


Is this sound reasoning for ruling out A?

[Brook Miscoski]

Snowy,

The best reason to eliminate (A) is that it reverses the flaw. Being very general about the description of the flaw does not make the choice wrong, so I would not eliminate (A) based on its generality. Question 19 is different because it is a strengthen question--you need to do more than simply describe the general problem, you need to give a solution that solves the problem for a strengthen question.


To illustrate my point, let's reverse (A) to the correct direction:

Fails to consider that one's perceptions about reports about the overall state of the economy affects one's confidence in one's own economic situation.

That is just a very general way of expressing the flaw that is more specifically expressed in (D). You have to be prepared for either choice.

[snowy]

Got it, thanks Brook!

[supjeremyklein]

the main turn off with (a) is that it's vague. it's basically saying 'level of x affects level of y' without specifying the relationship between how x affects y; is it an inverse or direct relationship?

does knowing this even matter? does it even matter if we flip their relationship (level of y affects level of x)? even if we flip it, the vagueness of it still exists.

[Adam Tyson]

A more specific answer that indicates that a negative view of the economy has a negative effect on one's view of their own situation would be better, but any answer that correctly points out the possible link between the two would still be worth considering. Don't expect answers to be perfect!

[teddykim100]

Hi all,

for anyone still who confused on how A is "Reversed" I can try my hand at it:

Since this is a rebuttal of an opposing argument, we should proceed by outlining the two opposing views' evidence + conclusion

Critics' Evidence
news reports damage confidence + damaged confidence leads to reduced spending

Critics' Conclusion
therefore, news reports damage the economy (the implied assumption being that reduced spending leads to a harmed economy


Author's evidence
there's actually a study that said that people's spending correlates with their personal economy

Author's conclusion
therefore, the critics are mistake [that negative news reports harm the economy]

Starting with the conclusion - we have to recognize it's extremely strong. It basically says there is zero way for negative news reports to damage the economy. We know that that is a ridiculous claim to make, and one even harder to prove. So how does the author try and prove it? By countering evidence: they're claiming, "no, it's not negative reports [which damage confidence] that causes reduced spending, it's actually people's individual economy that leads toreduced spending"

So we have two seemingly conflicting ideas: which one causes reduced spending? Is it the negative news reports? or is it people's individual economy?

Here's the key:
for the author's argument to work, AKA for them to conclude entirely that "negative news reports can't harm the economy at all", they entirely need to believe that the "influencer" of people's spending, is people's individual economy. Otherwise, how would the conclusion be so strong, and how would the critics be so mistaken? This is an essential, implied and unstated part of the argument

So let's say we have to be absolutely sure that people's individual economy is the number one thing that influences spending. Well then how would point out a flaw in the author's argument?

Well what if damaged confidence from news reports, CAUSES you to pay more attention to your individual economy? That's a smart counter, because the chain would then look like this

negative news reports damaged confidence more individual economy observations reduction in personal spending (aka economy bad)

Now, ultimately the critics WOULDN'T be mistaken, because the very first "cause" of the bad economy, is now the negative news reports. D fits that.

A does not, and A doesn't harm the argument in any way (remember, we're looking for something the argument FAILED to do). If individual economy caused you to see the larger economy in a certain way, then ultimately, the author would be even more correct (plug it back into the chain above). The "ultimate" or "first" cause, would be people paying attention to their individual economy first, which would then affect how you perceive news reports/the larger economy overall.

[Robert Carroll]

teddykim,

Thank you for that. Can't we also say that answer choices (A) and (D) just reverse each other? And the author is basically defusing the critics by saying "but wait, since spending correlates with people's confidence in their own situations, their preexisting confidence will cause them to basically ignore negative news about the overall economy." The author does what answer choice (A) says, and doesn't ignore it, but what the author ignored was that the causality may flow in the opposite direction.

Robert Carroll