Editorial: One of our local television

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match Opposite Logic1% picked this

   Journalism deserves to be criticized if it does not provide information

   This gives a rule that says, "If a story does not provide information that people want, then we should criticize that journalism." We want something resembling the "flipped light switch" version of this: "If a story does provide information that people want, then we should praise that journalism". If we want an answer that says "if X, then Y", you can't pick an answer that says "if not X, then not Y". Those mean two very different things.

   1%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   Any journalism that intentionally misrepresents the facts of a case deserves

   Just like (A), this gives us a rule that would allow us to conclude that some journalism deserves to be criticized. if intentionally misrepresents ? that journalism the facts of a case deserves to be criticized We're looking for a rule that would allow us to conclude that some journalism was good.

   2%
3. C

   Correct90% picked this

   Any journalism that provides accurate information on a subject about which there is considerable interest

   Why this is right

   This gives us a rule that is triggered by the evidence and delivers us the verdict in our conclusion. if provides accurate info on a subject about which ? good journalism there is considerable interest Did the coverage of the nephew's problems provide accurate information? Yes. Was it a subject about which there is considerable interest? Yes, many people are curious about this and the coverage had higher than average viewership. Since the rule applies to this situation and instructs us to regard this situation as "good journalism", then this principle has strengthened the author's argument.

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

   90%
4. D

   Reversed Logic2% picked this

   Good journalism will always provide people with information that they desire

   We need a rule that says, "If evidence, then conclusion". This answer is more like saying, "If conclusion, then evidence". It says, provides people with info if good journalism ? they need or desire This rule is functionally useless to us. We're trying to pick a rule that would help us to conclude that something is good journalism. This is a rule that is saying, "If you already know that it's good journalism, then you can conclude that it will provide people with info they want or need".

   2%
5. E

   Opposite Logic5% picked this

   Journalism that neither satisfies the public's curiosity nor provides accurate information can never be

   This is doing the same "illegal light switch" that (A) was doing. We wanted an answer to say if it provides accurate info ? good journalism that satisfies public's curiosity And this answer is saying if it doesn't provide accurate not good info and doesn't satisfy the ? journalism public's curiosity

   5%