Q13 - The press reports on political campaigns

[WaltGrace1983]

I got this question wrong (chose D instead of B) and so I am going to go through my thought process again and maybe someone else out. It would be great if someone could go through this and tell me what they think! I am not really sure I have figured this one out:

The Argument
The press is ignoring substantive policy issues and reporting only on the process --> Press reports deprive voters of the information they need to make informed decisions
new

The big takeaway here is that these "substantive policy issues" lead to the "informed decisions." That is, substantive policy issues --> informed decisions and ~informed decisions --> ~substantive policy issues. The assumption here seems to be that you cannot be informed without the substantive policy issues.

(A) Out of scope. It doesn't matter what is the most appropriate analogy here. This is actually kind of a silly answer choice and should be an automatic eliminate. Whether or not it is the best, it has no bearing on the argument.
(B) Correct. The argument is saying that not reporting on substantive issues "deprives voters" of the crucial information they need. However, what if the politicians don't actually have positions on substantive policy issues? In that case, the voters are not being deprived of any information that they need.
(C) Opposite. This actually weakens the argument because the argument is saying that without the reporting on substantive issues then we don't have informed voters. However, this answer choice is saying that the voters actually DO know the substantive issues because how the press reports on politics determines them.
(D) Here is the tricky one. I think the trick here is the vagueness of the terms "paying enough attention to the election." If we say that they ARE paying enough attention to the election, then couldn't they just be paying attention to these news reports that don't actually give them any information? I don't really understand this one.
(E) Opposite. This would actually destroy the argument because the whole point of the argument is that there IS a difference between reporting on the "process" and on reporting "substantive issues." If these are the same then we actually do have informed voters and the argument falls apart

[tommywallach]

Hey Walt,

Lots of great stuff here, but also some things I would correct. First off, be careful with the argument. Always separate into conclusion and premise, and focus on the parts of the argument presented that way. In this case:

Conclusion: Campaign advisors should stay out of limelight so press can report on substantive issues

Premise: Press only reports on campaign advisors

(You had some other stuff for both conclusion and premise.)

Your take on most answers was great, except for (D). The problem with (D) is not the vagueness of the language. This argument does not assume the voters aren't paying enough attention--quite the opposite! The argument assumes the voters are paying lots of attention; the problem is that the only thing they're being presented with is campaign advisor stuff, not substantive stuff.

Hope that helps!

-t

[dhlim3]

I picked C because when you negate the answer, it destroys the conclusion.

C) Press Reports determines the substantive issues in the campaigns.

Negation: Press Reports do not determine the substantive issues in the campaign.

Once you take the negation, then the conclusion that "the campaign advisers should stay out of the limelight and let the press report on the most revealing positions on substantive issues the candidates have taken." get destroyed because once the negation takes effect, it implies that whatever is reported by the press bears no importance on what substantive issues are, so letting the press report on other things become irrelevant, thus destroying the argument.

Explanation please?

[Mab6q]

I picked C because when you negate the answer, it destroys the conclusion.

C) Press Reports determines the substantive issues in the campaigns.

Negation: Press Reports do not determine the substantive issues in the campaign.

Once you take the negation, then the conclusion that "the campaign advisers should stay out of the limelight and let the press report on the most revealing positions on substantive issues the candidates have taken." get destroyed because once the negation takes effect, it implies that whatever is reported by the press bears no importance on what substantive issues are, so letting the press report on other things become irrelevant, thus destroying the argument.

Explanation please?

C is simply too strong and not needed. C is saying that the reporting determines what the issues are, but we don't need this. We simply need to know that the reporting allows people to make informed decisions. This is what C negated would be:


It is not true that how the press reports determines the substantive issues in a campaign. So, even though what they report doesn't determine the actual issues, it could allow votes to make informed decision.


I though D was tricky, but it might actually weaken. If the voters are not paying enough information, that might suggest an alternative reason why they are making uninformed decision, so reporting on substantive issues might be useless.

[jdieck]

Hi,

Just wondering if someone could explain the role of the last sentence in the stimulus. I'm not sure if the conclusion of the argument is the last sentence or the part that says "They are deprived of the information they need to make informed decisions..."

Let me illustrate what I am asking:

Because the press is ignoring substantive policy issues and reporting only on the process of the campaign--->
they are deprived of the informtaion they need to make informed decisions.

OR

They are deprived of the information they need to make informed decisions because the press is ignoring substantive policy issues and reporting only on the process of the campaign---->
It is clear that the campaign advisors should should stay out of the limelight etc.

Which one is it?

Thank you in advance