Q19 - The format of television news programs ...

[ottoman]

I know that A is the correct answer. I am wondering why D cannot be the right answer. Is it because it has "television news reports"?

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

I think "television news reports" is indeed out of scope; we're can't necessarily equate that with "network television news programs", which is the subject of our conclusion.

But honestly I wouldn't even have noticed that little detail creep if you hadn't pointed it out.

I was getting rid of (D) because of the fact that "equal time" given to both sides doesn't go against any of the paragraph.

The author wasn't complaining that TV news was biased or slanted (if that were the author's gripe, then it WOULD be an objection to say "Hey, both sides are given equal time")

The author was complaining that both sides are given ONLY 30 seconds, which gives a shallow, oversimplified picture of the issue (as compared with newspapers, which give more details).

So whether or not opposing sides are given "equal time" is irrelevant to the argument.

Whether or not opposing sides are given "enough time to create a careful discussion of the issue" is relevant to the argument.

Hope this helps.

[Cavetisy]

Can anyone explain the core of the argument and why (A) weakens it? Or, just check my work. Please!

The argument seems to be saying that:
1) Network television leds to reducing the expectation of careful discussion of public issues from the viewer's awareness.
2) Newspaper stories, on the other hand, has the opposite effect-that of increasing the expectation of careful discussion of public issues.
3) Therefore: Unlike newspaper reading, watching the network television increases the tendency to think of public issues in oversimplified terms.

The assumption seems to be that those watching the network television news program are not watching anything else that can also influence their the way they think?? However, the argument failed to consider that you can both read the newspaper and watch the television, in which case their effects would at least off set each other and weaken the conclusion somewhat. Which is answer choice (A)??

Thanks in advanced!!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I think you nailed it. I'll go ahead and put a complete explanation up here.

Weaken

Conc:
Unlike reading the paper, regularly watching network news makes you more likely to think of public issues in oversimplified terms.

Prem:
Network news - 30 sec format leads to thinking of issues in terms of slogans and catch phrases (regular watchers stop expecting careful discussion of public issues)

Newspapers - maintain the expectation of careful discussion of public issues

======
We should try to evaluate arguments in terms of
- Missing Logical Links
- Potential Objections / Alternative Explanations

There's definitely a missing link between "maintaining/losing the expectation of careful discussion of public issues" and "actually THINKING about public issues in oversimplified terms".

The first idea is whether we expect meaningful discourse out of our news outlet.

The second idea is whether OUR thinking has actually changed into oversimplified drivel.

If we're trying to think of Potential Objections (ways to argue that "regularly watching network news DOESN'T increase the tendency to oversimplify public issues"), we would want to argue somehow that the people who watch network news aren't tainted by its shallow, 30 second, slogan-filled format.

(A) This weakens the argument by suggesting that regular watchers AREN'T tainted by the network news. Why? Because these are the people who are most likely to read the newspaper, which should theoretically give them the full complexity of public issues.

(B) This seems to just strengthen the author's message that network news doesn't go in-depth enough. The entire coverage of a story averages less than 90 seconds.

(C) This also strengthens the argument. It makes it sound like network news shows are NOT a good source of well-rounded consideration of complex public issues.

(D) This almost has no effect on the argument. 'Equal time' is a consideration that helps us evaluate whether network news is biased or even-handed. But the author's concern is not that network news is one-sided, it's that network news is too quick and shallow, leading to oversimplified views. It does MILDLY weaken the argument to suggest that network news gives 30 seconds to each side (that at least gives viewers SOME depth on an issue). But this doesn't have nearly the counterpunch that (A) does. Also, (D) is about 'television news reports', not 'network television news programs'. Those aren't even necessarily the same topic.

(E) This has more of a strengthening effect, as it is essentially the opposite of (A). The author has MORE reason to be concerned about the deleterious effects of network news if the people who watch TV are people who don't read newspapers.

Hope this helps.

[coco.wu1993]

(A) This weakens the argument by suggesting that regular watchers AREN'T tainted by the network news. Why? Because these are the people who are most likely to read the newspaper, which should theoretically give them the full complexity of public issues.

I still have doubt on why A is the correct answer.

I don't think A weakens because, even if regular TV viewers are more likely to be regular newspaper readers, watching TV news can still increase the tendency to think in oversimplified style. The effect can indeed be balanced by reading newspapers, but such effect does exist. Could you please explain more on this?

[ohthatpatrick]

Sure!

You're correct, the conclusion could absolutely still be correct.

The point of a correct Weaken answer is not to falsify the conclusion, it's to weaken it ... to introduce at least some additional doubt as to the validity of the conclusion.

You'll (almost?) never find a correct answer to Strengthen that PROVES the conclusion nor a correct answer to Weaken that REFUTES the conclusion.

You're only asking yourself, "Does it move the needle at all in favor of believing it or not-believing it?"

For example, consider this argument:
John is crying. Thus, he must be cutting onions.

Would this weaken?
(A) John's dog died this morning.





Yes!

Of course it would weaken; it provides an alternative explanation for why John is crying. Did I just prove that John is crying over his dead dog? No.

Is it possible he already mourned his dog (or didn't like the dog in the first place) and is now just crying because he's cutting onions? Yes.

But it was still a correct answer to a Weaken question.

When you compare the five answers (according to my previous post's explanation) you're looking at

(A) kinda Weakens
(B) kinda Strengthens
(C) kinda Strengthens
(D) just irrelevant
(E) kinda Strengthens

Clearly, (A) is the answer that most weakens. That's how we have to judge these.

(A) makes me worry a little less about what the conclusion is saying ... "oh, maybe I don't need to worry that much about the public's oversimplified understanding since TV watching isn't the ONLY source of news information that network TV news watchers are getting." Notice they amped up the strength of language with "much more likely" and "habitual readers" to give this some persuasive oomph.

This is just a correlation, but it actually strengthens (not proves) the notion that maybe watching a 30 second story on network news makes someone more likely to have an appetite for the full story in the newspaper. In that sense, watching the TV news might be HELPING the public have a more sophisticated understanding.

If you like the pure, mathematical logic of Sufficient Assumption / Principle Justify / Inference, etc. (as I do), then Strengthen and Weaken will probably be your least favorite question types (as they are for me).

[coco.wu1993]

The point of a correct Weaken answer is not to falsify the conclusion, it's to weaken it ... to introduce at least some additional doubt as to the validity of the conclusion.

Thank you! Your explanation makes perfect sense and I learned a lot from it

[jeanne'sjean]

There's definitely a missing link between "maintaining/losing the expectation of careful discussion of public issues" and "actually THINKING about public issues in oversimplified terms".

The first idea is whether we expect meaningful discourse out of our news outlet.

The second idea is whether OUR thinking has actually changed into oversimplified drivel.

Sorry, I'm a little bit confused by these words.

If you say the missing link between "maintaining/losing the expectation of careful discussion of public issues" and "actually THINKING about public issues in oversimplified terms", doesn't it be something like "whether maintaining/losing the expectation of careful discussion of public issues actually leads to actually thinking about public issues in oversimplified terms"? And from this sense, it may be more in line with your Potential Objection means.

And I think your two ideas are more likely to be questioning the evidence from the stimulus. Do I have some misunderstanding?

Thanks!

[KevinC412]

This still doesn't make any sense. The conclusion could absolutely still be correct if A were true. Additionally, (A) in no way weakens the reasoning of this argument. We are concerned with watching TV news programs and its effect on increasing the tendency to think of things in simplified terms. Even if all people who watched TV regularly also read newspapers, that doesn't mean TV itself isn't increasing that tendency.

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm not sure if you've read all of the above thread, but we've been agreeing with you and reminding people that it doesn't matter whether the conclusion could still be true.

We're not going to find correct answers on Weaken that prevent the conclusion from being true. They're just going to increase some doubt about whether it's true.

You said:
Even if all people who watched TV regularly also read newspapers, that doesn't mean TV itself isn't increasing that tendency [to think in simplified terms].

It's possible, as we said before, that regular watchers of TV news get their interest piqued by the 30 sec format and then deep dive into the details with their habitual newspaper reading.

If watching a TV news program increases my tendency to seek out a newspaper article follow-up, then it's not increasing my tendency to think in oversimplified terms.


If you prefer, an alternative way you can construe the weakening effect of (A) is that the author is saying
if regular tv news watcher ---> expectation of careful discussion disappears from awareness
if regular newspaper reader --> expectation of careful discussion maintained

If, as (A) reveals, there's a huge swath of people who are both regular tv news watchers and regular newspaper readers, then his two little conditional paths contradict each other, so his argument has some issues.