The explanation offered by the

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong3% picked this

   Television station executives usually lack a political agenda of

   Too Strong: usually lack an agenda Out of Scope: executives This argument doesn't talk about individual executives. It says that TV stations aren't trying to exercise their political agenda via their programming. And the author could still accept that TV stations have a political agenda. She is only arguing that their political agenda, if it exists, is not the reason that you usually only see mainstream opinion and analysis on TV talk shows.

   3%
2. B

   Correct76% picked this

   Bland and innocuous political opinions and analyses are generally in

   Why this is right

   This matches the implied meaning of the paragraph. The author is trying to explain why TV talk shows usually just show mainstream views. Her explanation is that they're trying to appeal to a large number of people, so the opinions and analyses are usually bland and innocuous. In order for this to be an explanation of why opinions and analyses are usually mainstream, the author must be assuming that bland and innocuous opinions qualify as mainstream.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   76%
3. C

   Out of Scope: analysts' indifference5% picked this

   Political analysts outside the mainstream are relatively indifferent to the effect their analyses have

   The argument might be assuming that political analysts outside the mainstream "usually would not appeal to large numbers of people", but that's it. The author doesn't need to assume anything about these specific people, let alone something specific like whether or not they're indifferent to how they make viewers feel.

   5%
4. D

   Too Strong2% picked this

   Most television viewers are prepared to argue against allowing the expression of political opinions and analyses

   Too Strong: most Out of Scope: argue against allowing The word "most" is wrong on Necessary Assumption 98% of the time we see it. Nothing in the argument is speaking to whether viewers are prepared to argue against allowing certain opinions. We were only talking about whether certain opinions would appeal to them. Would it hurt this author's argument if only 49% of TV viewers were prepared to argue against the expression of opinions they disagree with? Or does the author need it to be 51% in order for her explanation to work? Naturally, it wouldn't make any difference to the author's argument whether that percent was 49% or 51%, and that's why "most" is almost always wrong. It's not a Necessary threshold, to be over 50%.

   2%
5. E

   Out of Scope: executives14% picked this

   The political opinions of television station executives are not often reflected in the television shows

   The argument only talks about the political agenda of the stations themselves, never about the politics of the executives (never about the executives at all). Otherwise, this answer is somewhat tempting because it has the lovable "ruling out" not / no form that so many correct answers have on Necessary Assumption. When we negate it, it says "the political opinions of the execs are often reflected in the shows produced". Does that hurt the author's explanation of what's happening? Not really. The author thinks that stations are intentionally platforming mainstream views because that will appeal to large numbers of people. So it's pretty reasonable that TV execs might have some mainstream views, in which case their views will often be reflected in the mainstream opinions found on the shows they produce.

   14%