Television news coverage gives

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct76% picked this

   treats two things, neither one of which can plausibly be seen as excluding the other, as though

   Why this is right

   What a weird way to say what we were looking for. This kind of answer choice underscores the value of knowing how you plan to object to the argument before you start reading answer choices. Our objection was like, "Hey, author --- people can both watch TV (for direct involvement) and read the paper (for depth and appreciation)." The author's argument was predicated on the fact that TV itself can't provide full understanding, and newspaper itself can't provide full understanding. The author's blind spot was that if you combine these two things, then you'd have both necessary ingredients for full understanding. She's failing to consider that people could both read the paper and watch tv. She's assuming they don't do both. She's treating them like they're mutually exclusive.

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

   76%
2. B

   Not an Objection13% picked this

   ignores the possibility that people read newspapers or watch television for reasons other than gaining a full

   Since this answer begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would Weaken. Can we hurt the argument by saying, "Hey, author ... people aren't reading/watching in the hope of gaining a full understanding of current events"? No, that wouldn't hurt the author. It would strengthen her claim that most people are not fully understanding current events.

   13%
3. C

   Not an Objection2% picked this

   makes crucial use of the term “depth of coverage” without

   It's true that the author never provides a specific definition of the term "depth of coverage", but that's not a logical problem we have with the argument. The logic of the argument is this: Full understanding requires Y and Z. Most people only use TV and Papers. TV can give Y but not Z. Papers can give Z but not Y. ------- Thus, most people don't have full understanding. We could make the exact same logical objection to this argument (couldn't people get their Y from the TV and their Z from the papers and thereby attain a full understanding?), even though the argument never defines what Z means.

   2%
4. D

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   fails to consider the possible disadvantages of having a sense of direct involvement with tragic

   Since this answer begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would Weaken. Can we hurt the argument by saying, "Hey, author ... it might be kind of grueling and depressing to have a sense of direct involvement with current events, when they're tragic or violent?" No, that wouldn't hurt the author. She wasn't advocating that people should have a full understanding of current events (if she were, then we could raise the potential downsides of having a full understanding). She is just descriptively concluding that we don't have a full understanding. I can conclude that "Canada doesn't have the nuclear capacity to blow up the Moon", and that doesn't imply that I think Canada should have that capacity.

   1%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match8% picked this

   mistakenly reasons that just because something has the capacity to perform a given function it

   This answer is structured like this: reasons that because X, Y So we would check to see if X matches the evidence and if Y matches the conclusion (or the gateway assumption that gets the author to the conclusion). Was the evidence saying that "something has the capacity to perform a given function"? Sure, the evidence said that "TV has the capacity to give viewers a sense of direct involvement / Newspapers have the capacity to provide depth of coverage". So then according to this answer, the conclusion should have been saying/assuming that "Therefore, TV does give viewers a sense of direct involvement" or "Thus, newspapers do provide depth of coverage". But our conclusion sounds nothing like either of those claims.

   8%