Everyone should have access

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct47% picked this

   The argument confuses the inability to cover all sides of every story with the inability to cover all

   Why this is right

   This is addressing that last objection we discussed. If a newspaper is able to cover all sides of its important stories, then the author's Intermediate Conclusion in the last sentence is wrong — if there were only one newspaper, it's possible that the newspaper could adequately cover all the important stories. The author only established that one newspaper couldn't cover all sides of all stories, but she didn't establish that one newspaper would be unable to cover all sides of all the important stories (important stories might be a tiny subset of all stories, so it might be realistic to run multiple articles on the same big, important story in order to cover all sides).

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

   47%
2. B

   Not an Objection48% picked this

   The argument overlooks the possibility that two newspapers could provide the same incomplete coverage of

   Would it hurt the argument if two papers were essentially duplicating the same blind spots? (i.e. they're both covering sides 1 and 2 of an important story and failing to cover sides 3 and 4) No, it doesn't hurt the author's argument, because the author was never promising (in sufficient terms) that "IF you do have access to more than one newspaper, then you will have all sides". She was just arguing that "if you don't have access to more than one newspaper, then you won't have all sides".

   48%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   A conclusion about what newspapers should do is inferred solely from statements about what newspapers

   Whenever we see an answer structured "a conclusion about X is inferred solely from statements about Y", we should check to see whether X matches the conclusion and whether Y matches the evidence. Do we have a conclusion about what newspapers should do? Nope. There's a conclusion about what people should have access to. That's not the same as "what newspapers should do". Let's stop reading and eliminate.

   2%
4. D

   Too Strong: everyone / all1% picked this

   The argument takes for granted that everyone has access to

   Has our author committed herself to the crazy extreme notion that every person in the world has access to every newspaper in the world? Of course not. Flaw answers love to pair up assumption wording (takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish) with overly strong ideas. Our author would like everyone to have access to at least two papers. That's as far as she went in terms of talking about people's access to papers.

   1%
5. E

   Not a Flaw2% picked this

   The argument is concerned only with important stories and not with

   This is descriptively true, seemingly. The argument is definitely focused more on important stories. But there's nothing inherently wrong or flawed with focusing on one subset of a group.

   2%