The media now devote more

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Role16% picked this

   It supports the conclusion that the media now devote more coverage to crime than the

   We should bail four words in. It doesn't support the conclusion; it is the conclusion.

   16%
2. B

   Wrong Role19% picked this

   It is presented as evidence that the media decide what to cover and to what extent to cover it depending on

   We should bail five words in. It isn't evidence. It's the conclusion. Evidence was offered for it, in the final sentence.

   19%
3. C

   Wrong Role1% picked this

   It is a counterexample to the claim that the media devote more coverage to crime now than they

   We should bail four words in. It's not a counterexample. It's the conclusion. It's the author's hypothesis.

   1%
4. D

   Weak Conclusion/Evidence Match1% picked this

   It is a generalization based on the claim that the crime rate has increased over

   The easier way to eliminate this is that this claim (media coverage of crime has risen because public interest in crime has risen) is based primarily on the final sentence, not the first sentence, as this answer choice says. It's also questionable whether we could call this a generalization. It's talking about a specific cause/effect relationship that occurred over the past 10 years.

   1%
5. E

   Correct64% picked this

   It is offered as an alternative explanation of why the media devote more coverage to crime now than

   Why this is right

   The author presented the Curious Fact: how come the media devote increasingly more coverage to crime? The author eschews one possible explanation: This is not because the crime rate has increased The author endorses, as her conclusion, an alternative explanation: (it's) because the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime. She supports her conclusion/ alternative explanation with the final sentence: Media mostly decide what to cover based on audience interest. LSAC is being a bit cheeky calling the author's explanation an alternative explanation, but in the chronological sequence of the argument, an initial explanation had already been raised, so it's fair game to call the second explanation considered an alternative explanation.

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

   64%