Q24 - Editorial: One of our local

[schwingrocker]

I noticed that a lot of the answers is about journalism not being good and deserving criticism. Can we rule those answers out immediately because of that? The correct answer is focused on what good journalism is

[demetri.blaisdell]

Thanks for posting. I think you are right about that. The bad journalism ones are hoping you will make a negation mistake (if we know what's bad, then we must know what's good). The core is pretty straight-forward:

Info was accurate + more people watched because they were curious ---> story was good journalism

(C) gives you a rough approximation of what we were looking for. The journalism is good if it was accurate and people were interested.

Wrong answers:

(A) is out of scope for the reason you mentioned. The argument is concerned with what makes good journalism.

(B) is again out of scope. We don't want to know what makes journalism worthy of criticism.

(D) is good from afar but far from good. It gives us a necessary when we want a sufficient. We don't care was all good journalism does. We care what will guarantee that what we have is good journalism. Re-read it and look for the reversed arrow if you don't see it at first.

(E) is more about bad journalism. That's out of scope.

I think you've got a nice approach here. The only way the right answer would include bad journalism is if it said something like "the only way for journalism to be bad is for ____." You might make a case for something like that. Since we don't have it, you're right to rule those out.

I hope this helps. Post if you have any more questions.

Demetri

[rinagoldfield]

Hello! Here's my take on this question. You can find it fully diagrammed and explained in the attachment.

[shirando21]

E's logic is wrong.

We want the principle to be: Accurate and many people are curious-->Good Journalism.

E says -accurate and -satisfy public curiosity-->-Good Journalism, if you negate this one, you get:

Good Journalism--> accurate or satisfy public curiosity

We want "and" in the principle not "or", and it is also revesed.