Everyone should have access to more than one newspaper, for there are at least two sides to every story.
Conclusion
Everyone should have access to more than one newspaper.
Intermediate Conclusion
Some important stories would not be adequately covered if there were only one newspaper.
Evidence
There are at least two sides to every story. All sides of an important story should be covered, and no newspaper adequately covers all sides of every one of its stories.
Evaluate
The opinion indicator "should" in the first sentence alerts us to the possibility that we have a First Sentence Conclusion. The "for" in the second half of that first sentence shows that we're supporting that initial opinion (F.A.B.S. are the four main support indicators: for, after all, because, since).
The "since" at the beginning of the the second sentence paired with the "and" that ropes in the 2nd claim of that sentence, means that the first two ideas of the final sentence are supporting the third idea in the final sentence, which makes that an Intermediate Conclusion.
All sides of important story some imp stories everyone should be covered stories would not should AND → be adequately → have No paper can covered with only access to cover all sides of one newspaper 2+ papers all of its stories
We can object to the move from the Premises to the Intermediate Conc, or to the move from the Intermediate to the Main Conc.
Let's start with that simpler move, from Intermediate to Main:
GIVEN THAT if you only had one paper, some important stories would not be adequately covered
HOW COULD WE SAY it's not the case that everyone should have access to more than one newspaper?
We could just say
How about the move from Premises to Intermediate Conclusion.
GIVEN THAT all sides of an important story should be covered, and that no newspaper can adequately cover all sides of all stories,
HOW COULD WE SAY it's possible that if there were only one newspaper, all important stories would be adequately covered?
Well, this one is tricky. We might not see the wiggle room until we read the answer choices and it gives us the hint, but the 2nd premise there isn't what it needs to be.
It needs to be saying: no newspaper can adequately cover all sides of all important stories.
Instead, it says that no paper can adequately cover all sides of all stories. Okay, that's fine. As long as the paper adequately covers all sides of the important stories, we don't care if they only cover one side of some of their unimportant stories.
So we've found a way to accept the premises but still argue that one newspaper could adequately cover all important stories.
Goal
Stay flexible. The answer might speak to this last objection (what if a newspaper were able to cover all sides of all the important stories?) or it might speak to the move to the Main Conclusion (who said that everyone needs to have access to adequate coverage of all important stories?)