Q26 - The media now devote more

[skapur777]

I don't see why it couldn't be answer choice A or B

[bbirdwell]

Let's start with breaking down the argument -- it would be awesome if, in future posts, you posted your analysis.

Conclusion:
media devote more coverage to crime because the public is more interested in hearing about it -- not because the crime rate has increased.

Premises:
a crucial factor in deciding what to cover is audience interest

So, the short answer as to why A and B cannot be correct is that the line in question is the conclusion of the argument.

Here's a closer look at the choices:
(A) eliminate! There is no discussion of "justification."
(B) eliminate! This is reversed. The last sentence is used as evidence to support the line in question, not vice versa.
(C) eliminate! That the media devote more coverage to crime is a fact given in the argument, not a claim needing support. In fact, the line in question is used to explain this fact.
(D) eliminate! The argument makes no claim that the crime rate has increased!
(E) correct! Alternative to what? Alternative to the idea that the increase in coverage is due to an increased crime rate.

Does that help?

[skapur777]

I see why all answers are now eliminated except for A and E. But, in the case of A, it seems that the line in question is a subsidiary conclusion for the grand conclusion which is the first line.

I would rephrase the argument as follows:

Because a crucial factor in the media's decisions about what issues to cover and to what extent to cover them is the interests of their audiences, the media now devotes more coverage to crime because the public is more interested in reading and hearing about crime.

But you say the problem is that the word justifies is used? Oh I see, the conclusion is that they devote more coverage to crime than they did ten years ago...oh my god what was I even thinking?

[peg_city]

Let's start with breaking down the argument -- it would be awesome if, in future posts, you posted your analysis.

Conclusion:
media devote more coverage to crime because the public is more interested in hearing about it -- not because the crime rate has increased.

Premises:
a crucial factor in deciding what to cover is audience interest

So, the short answer as to why A and B cannot be correct is that the line in question is the conclusion of the argument.

Here's a closer look at the choices:
(A) eliminate! There is no discussion of "justification."
(B) eliminate! This is reversed. The last sentence is used as evidence to support the line in question, not vice versa.
(C) eliminate! That the media devote more coverage to crime is a fact given in the argument, not a claim needing support. In fact, the line in question is used to explain this fact.
(D) eliminate! The argument makes no claim that the crime rate has increased!
(E) correct! Alternative to what? Alternative to the idea that the increase in coverage is due to an increased crime rate.

Does that help?

Please go into more detail on why A is wrong.

Media coverage of crime is going up despite the crime rate going down. Therefore, the increase in media coverage isn't justified because the crime rate is going down.

Thanks Again.

[skapur777]

Well, just because it hasn't increased doesn't mean it is "going down" or "decreased." That's the way I see it, at least...

[bbirdwell]

Media coverage of crime is going up despite the crime rate going down.

This is not true. Read it again and you'll see that we know nothing about the actual crime rate -- only coverage of crime. It may be going up, going down, staying the same.

[peg_city]

Media coverage of crime is going up despite the crime rate going down.

This is not true. Read it again and you'll see that we know nothing about the actual crime rate -- only coverage of crime. It may be going up, going down, staying the same.

My bad. But the original argument still stands. The crime rate hasn't increased but the coverage is going up, therefore the increased coverage isn't justified.

Thanks, again

[bbirdwell]

My bad. But the original argument still stands. The crime rate hasn't increased...

Haha! You've made the same error again, my friend. You're being tricked into incorrectly taking something as fact. We don't know ANYTHING about the actual crime rate.

Consider this:

I'm good at basketball, and it's not because I'm 7 ft tall.

Does that mean I'm 7 ft tall? Does it mean I'm not?

Same thing here:
Coverage is up, and it's not because the crime rate is increasing.

Does that mean the crime rate is increasing? Decreasing?

We don't know!

Or a more far-out example:
This place is odd, and it's not because the people glow in the dark.

See what I'm getting at?

Also, that wouldn't necessarily make it un-justified even if it were true. As the argument suggests, it could be justified because people want to see more of it.

[peg_city]

Ahh yes, I see it now.

Thanks very much again

[geverett]

Interested to hear more on A.

Even though the author does not use the word "justify" is he/she not essentially saying that the crime rate by itself is not sufficient to justify the increased media coverage of crime. Rather he cites that the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime.

Would this answer be wrong then because the conclusion is just "The media now devote more coverage to crime than they did ten years ago." It then goes on to provide the reason for this as not being an increase in crime, but rather the interest of the audience. However the crime rate is not a part of the conclusion, but rather a premise that supports the conclusion. So when they list it as part of the conclusion in answer choice A is that what makes it wrong?

Hope I'm making sense on this one. I definitely see why E is right just wanting to push a little further on A.

[bbirdwell]

Would this answer be wrong then because the conclusion is just "The media now devote more coverage to crime than they did ten years ago."

That's not the conclusion. It's just a fact.

Even though the author does not use the word "justify" is he/she not essentially saying that the crime rate by itself is not sufficient to justify the increased media coverage of crime. Rather he cites that the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime.

Now, this points to the correct sentence for the conclusion, but the author is not saying anything about the sufficiency of the crime rate for justifying the increase in exposure. Again, we don't even know whether the crime rate has actually increased or not.

To simplify things, forget that part for a moment and get down to the CORE, the bare essentials of this argument:

1. media covers more crime than 10 yrs ago
2. media decides what to cover based on audience interest

Therefore: media covers more crime because public is more interested in it.

The question is asking "what role does the part about the public being more interested play?" Answer? It's the conclusion. Sweet.

A, B, and C drop like flies.

(D) is an easy elimination because that claim is never made.

(E) bingo. "Alternative explanation" = "explanation" = "conclusion." We might ask, alternative to what? Now that irrelevant part comes into play -- alternative to the idea that the crime rate was responsible for the increase in coverage.

I think the key takeaway here is not to get tangled up in playing a game that we don't need to play. Logical Reasoning is all about efficiency and the CORE. Don't mess around with more than the bare minimum unless you have to.


Here's an analogous argument that might be easier to see:

I'm eating more than I did last month. And this is not because of the purple elephant in the backyard, but rather because I'm now exercising more. After all, a big factor in food consumption is the amount of physical activity a person participates in.

Are there really purple elephants? Is there really one in the backyard? Who cares!! There are literally INFINITE "non-reasons" for my eating more. What's the point of my argument? The REASON is, exercise. The non-reason is simply a distraction.

[geverett]

This is a great explanation Brian. I had forgotten that I wrote a question about this answer choice until I saw it come up just now in my post history. Right you are that the first sentence is not a conclusion. Really great info.

[chunsunb]

I actually think that the term justifiable is legitimate in answer choice (A) -- it just means "explainable."

But I think that the reason that (A) is wrong is that the paragraph does not clearly indicate whether the conclusion is:
1) crime rate alone does not explain the increAse in coverage of crime (which is what A is saying); or
2) public's increased interest in crime explains the increase in coverage of crime.

In other words, we are not sure, by the passage alone, rather the proposition that "public is now more interested " is just a support for the conclusion (1) or an actual part of a conclusion of a broader scope (2)