In its coverage of a controversy

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact3% picked this

   Most of the people who watched the program were aware of the

   We don't really care about the awareness of the audience. We just want an alternate explanation for the 2:1 ratio of haters to lovers, or we want to debunk this storyline that the TV program is biased against the freeway and therefore is presenting a biased anti-freeway ratio.

   3%
2. B

   No Impact3% picked this

   Most viewers of television news programs do not expect those programs to be completely

   We don't really care about the expectations of the audience. We just want an alternate explanation for the 2:1 ratio of haters to lovers, or we want to debunk this storyline that the TV program is biased against the freeway and therefore is presenting a biased anti-freeway ratio. If this answer had said, "Most viewers demand their programs to be completely free of bias" that would slightly weaken the argument. It would make it seem less plausible that the TV program would risk presenting biased interviews, for fear that if their audience discovered this bias, the audience would be furious and stop watching this show.

   3%
3. C

   Unclear Impact3% picked this

   In the interviews, the people against the new freeway expressed their opinions with more emotion than the people

   We don't really know how to judge the impact of more emotional expression of opinion. We might think, "if the people against the freeway were more emotional, then they were sincere opinions, not opinions the TV show pressured these people into having based on the show's bias". But that would be a big stretch. It's very easy to express a bogus opinion with a lot of emotion (consider how politicians in Congress speak). There's no common sense link between how much emotion you used to express your opinion and how sincere that opinion was.

   3%
4. D

   Correct85% picked this

   Before the program aired, over twice as many people were against building the freeway than were

   Why this is right

   This presents an Alternate Explanation for the Curious Fact. There wasn't a 2:1 ratio of haters vs. lovers because the TV show are themselves haters and wanted to present a skewed picture. It looks like 2:1 is the correct picture of public sentiment. So, unbiased reporting would reflect this 2:1 divide. As an upside-down analogy, we know that 98% of climate scientists believe in dire, man-made global warming. 98% vs. 2% is a 49:1 ratio. If a TV show was covering climate change and interviewed three scientists who believe in climate change and three scientists who are climate skeptics, that would actually be biased reporting. It would sent the wrong message to the viewing audience that the scientific community is evenly divided. Having 49 scientists tell you climate change is real and 1 scientist telling you it's a hoax would be unbiased reporting.

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

   85%
5. E

   Strengthens5% picked this

   The business interest of the television station that produced the program would be harmed by the construction

   This actually increases the plausibility of the Author's Explanation, by assigning a backstory / motive / incentive for why the TV program would be biased against the proposed freeway.

   5%