Q3 - Balance is particularly important when

[charleneroche]

hi from what i got from the argument's conclusion is if there was balanced reporting it would conflict with our views. I narrowed the choices down to b and c but having trouble with why c i incorrect

[tommywallach]

Hey Charlene,

This question exemplifies why it's so important to think out the pieces of the argument in isolation, before looking at the answer choices. If you do that, this question becomes quite easy; if you don't do it, it's easy to get fooled. Always break an argument down into its core:

Conclusion: Reportage must be balanced, but not by glossing over basic injustices.

Premise: Glossing over injustices would lead to a picture of the world where every conflict had equal justice on either side.

I realize that you wouldn't have time to write this down, but that isn't an excuse to directly think it (i.e. you should actually say inside your mind: "The conclusion is X, the premise is Y"). Once you've done this, the answer becomes obvious.

(C) has nothing to do with reporting on stuff, which is the whole point of the argument.

Hope that helps!

-t

[contropositive]

Please tell me if my reasoning for elimination is right Even though it is a main point argument, I approach it like a Must Be True (like in inference questions).

A) is a fact given to support first sentences. In short, premise.

C) Premise

D) the only thing mentioned about common sense is in the last sentence which is meant to imply that its common sense that there is no equal measure of justice in conflicts. Therefore, this answer choice is out of scope.

E) we don't know anything about judgments of balance - out of scope.


Out only choice left is B. I had to review this for a good 10-12 minutes because I couldn't understand why its B. I understood why others were wrong but I had trouble understanding B because "they occur no less than fairly presenting..." seemed a little confusing.

[ohthatpatrick]

Well, I would start by recommending that you DON'T treat Main Conclusion questions like Inference questions.



Some Inference questions DO have a correct answer that feels like the "Main Point", i.e. like a safe synthesis of all the stuff we were talking about.

But many Inference questions have a correct answer that is not necessarily a big or important idea; it's just an idea that CAN be proven from the provided info.

If we were treating this as an Inference question, then (B) and (C) would both be valid inferences.

But this question wants to know the author's MAIN takeaway. What was her overall advice / judgment?

She's urging the media to fairly represent both sides, but she's adding that fairly representing both sides doesn't mean portraying both sides as equally justified.

If one side is clearly more in the wrong, balanced reporting should still reflect that.

Your problem in how you were reading (B) was based on confusion about the grammatical structure of
X no less than Y

Balanced reporting requires
impartially revealing injustices where they occur
no less than (as much as)
fairly presenting the views of each party

(A) This doesn't reflect an accurate restatement of anything the author said. The author said that a "perverse" (i.e. crazy) interpretation of balanced reporting would be thinking that all sides have equal justification. The AUTHOR's notion of balanced reporting is NOT this.

(B) This is the author's big takeaway (opinion) and it is supported by the 2nd sentence and the last sentence.

Why does BR require revealing injustices and fairly presenting views?

Because, if BR meant portraying both sides as equally justified, the public would be given a picture of the world that goes contrary to our experience and our common sense.

(C) This is an Inference that can be drawn from the final sentence. However, the author never SAID this, therefore it definitely won't be "the sentence we identify as her main point".

(D) You were right that we can't relate common sense back to civil wars and conflicts.

(E) This is an extreme claim ("cannot be realized"). Nothing in the author's paragraph sounds that pessimistic.

Hope this helps.

[RAANZ439]

My breakdown of the argument

Background info:
Balance is important in reportage of civil wars because they require facts not to be manipulated for parties to be fairly represented.
Some reportage takes this notion of balance as a justification for glossing over basic injustices for fair representation.

Premise:
If reportage glosses over basic injustices for balance, the public would be presented a picture where each party has an equal measure of justice.
Each party has an equal measure of justice is contrary to our common sense.

Conclusion:
Glossing over basic injustices is not justified by the notion of balance.