- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:00 am
#35306
Complete Question Explanations
Resolve the ParadoxX. The correct answer choice is (D)
The first sentence establishes that there has been no change in the frequency of quotes by newspaper
journalists in support of flawed claims (e.g., “as often now as in the past”). An apparent paradox
results from the expectation that journalists ought to be as likely to challenge dubious claims as
they used to be, but they have apparently become less likely to do so. The question stem asks you to
identify an answer which does not help explain why journalists would use dubious as often as ever
but challenge them less often.
Answer choice (A): If (A) is true, journalists would have decreased incentive to challenge dubious
claims. The prospect of losing customers whose views have been disputed would certainly
discourage journalists from questioning unsupported or flawed claims.
Answer choice (B): If (B) is true, newspaper journalists may simply be unable to recognize which
claims are flawed or unsupported. By inference from (B), previous journalists could specialize in
certain areas of knowledge and have an increased likelihood spotting dubious claims in those areas.
Current journalists encounter and report a similar number of bad claims, but do not know enough to
challenge them.
Answer choice (C): Answer choice (C) suggests that the number of bad claims being made may
not have changed, but the venues for those claims have changed. In the past, dubious claims made
to a neutral reporter were more likely to be challenged than such claims made to a reporter who is
already sympathetic to those views.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If creating debate over controversial issues
draws attention (as this answer suggests), journalists would have an added incentive to challenge
claims, dubious or otherwise. In fact, this answer might provide an incentive to increasingly report
and challenge unsupported or false claims, neither of which is happening according to the stimulus.
Thus, answer choice (D) does not help to explain the trend and is the correct answer.
Answer choice (E): Much like answer choice (A), this answer would discourage challenging dubious
claims. For that matter, answer choice (E) would discourage challenging any claims, as a reasonable
journalist would strive to avoid criticism.
Resolve the ParadoxX. The correct answer choice is (D)
The first sentence establishes that there has been no change in the frequency of quotes by newspaper
journalists in support of flawed claims (e.g., “as often now as in the past”). An apparent paradox
results from the expectation that journalists ought to be as likely to challenge dubious claims as
they used to be, but they have apparently become less likely to do so. The question stem asks you to
identify an answer which does not help explain why journalists would use dubious as often as ever
but challenge them less often.
Answer choice (A): If (A) is true, journalists would have decreased incentive to challenge dubious
claims. The prospect of losing customers whose views have been disputed would certainly
discourage journalists from questioning unsupported or flawed claims.
Answer choice (B): If (B) is true, newspaper journalists may simply be unable to recognize which
claims are flawed or unsupported. By inference from (B), previous journalists could specialize in
certain areas of knowledge and have an increased likelihood spotting dubious claims in those areas.
Current journalists encounter and report a similar number of bad claims, but do not know enough to
challenge them.
Answer choice (C): Answer choice (C) suggests that the number of bad claims being made may
not have changed, but the venues for those claims have changed. In the past, dubious claims made
to a neutral reporter were more likely to be challenged than such claims made to a reporter who is
already sympathetic to those views.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If creating debate over controversial issues
draws attention (as this answer suggests), journalists would have an added incentive to challenge
claims, dubious or otherwise. In fact, this answer might provide an incentive to increasingly report
and challenge unsupported or false claims, neither of which is happening according to the stimulus.
Thus, answer choice (D) does not help to explain the trend and is the correct answer.
Answer choice (E): Much like answer choice (A), this answer would discourage challenging dubious
claims. For that matter, answer choice (E) would discourage challenging any claims, as a reasonable
journalist would strive to avoid criticism.