Q18 - The format of network television

[tamwaiman]

I would like to know how to cross out (C).

(1) the stimulus doesn't discuss "TV" but rather "network TV", therefore it is out of scope, if so, we can eliminate (B)(E) by the same way.
or
(2) even 30 second the advocates still can present public issues in a way that (C) describes, therefore it is irrelevant.
or
both?

Thank you.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

For a problem such as this one, for which the answer choices all sound a lot alike, it is important to compare them against the specific details of the argument's conclusion, as it seems you have done --

"network television news programs" and "television" is certainly an inconsistency to note.

I don't think I agree w/your second point, and I think my reasoning hits at the bigger issue with answer choice (C), which is that it is too absolute.

Notice, the conclusion is about a "tendency" and even the 30-second spots only happen "generally."

(C) is much more absolute -- "It is not possible" -- and therefore this is not an assumption that is required here.

[lhermary]

Can someone go into more detail as to why C is wrong?

Thanks

[john.o.wray]

A) B) and E) can all pretty quickly be eliminated.

C) and D) are very similar so let's delve into them.

C) Is incorrect because yes, it says television instead of network television (the argument isn't really assuming that all of television is doing this, it's only assuming that it's the case for network TV).

But really, even if it said "network television" there, it still would be wrong. The prompt makes no mention of nuanced presentations or good faith interchanges-- it only talks about how newspapers are superior because of their "details".

D) Directly talks about that. It addresses the gap, neatly tailored, to saying that reporters in TV programs fail to offer those details and background information.

In short, C) deals with nuance, D) deals with information, and the arguer's beef was the lack of info, not lack of nuance.

Hope this helps-- tricky question...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice explanation john.o.wray!

I'm glad to see some discussion on this one, it's a good one. Though I wish the stimulus weren't so long so that it'd be easier to focus on the reasoning underlying the argument.

It concludes that regular watching of tv news increases the tendency to think in oversimplified terms. Why? Because tv news only gives 30 seconds to advocates of each side to present their views and as a result the viewers of tv news come to think in terms of slogans and catch phrases (ie: oversimplified terms).

The issue answer choice (D) addresses and one that may not be so apparent on a first read is that the 30 seconds allotted for the presentation of each sides view is what is given to "advocates" of each side. Answer choice (D) addresses the possibility that the reporters may provide the context in a careful and informed manner.

John was absolutely right that the decision between answer choices (C) and (D) is the real challenge on this question. So let's look at those two carefully. What you notice that's different? Answer choice (C) is about what is possible. Answer choice (D) is about what actually happens. It doesn't need to be assumed that it's not possible to present the facts and a free-interchange of opposing views. It does, however, need to be the case that such an interchange and presentation of facts is not happening.

Incorrect Answers

(A) is irrelevant. The argument is about what is being presented, not about what ought to be or what tv viewers would even care to remedy the distinction between tv news and newspaper stories outlined in the argument.
(B) affects the choice on the part of television news to present information in a simplified way, but not whether watching that presentation actually leads to a tendency to think of public issues in an oversimplified way.
(C) is the tempting (yet incorrect) answer choice. However it goes to far by eliminating the possibility of presenting news with lengthier discussions. The argument only assumes that such discussions are not present.
(E) is irrelevant. The argument is about the presentation of facts and lengthier discussions. Bias may affect the accuracy of the reports, but not the tendency to think of public issues in an over-simplified way.

[Jessica_x_1028]

I feel c is wrong because the argument is kinda emphasizing the time of the presentation, I.e. 30s is too short, instead of diverse views.

D is better because it states something about the "time", I.e. No time will be given for information.