Q9 - Television news coverage gives viewers

[jamiejames]

can someone explain why A is correct? thank you!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

One of the toughest skills the LSAT tests is your ability to describe in abstract language the contents of an argument. Questions that ask you to Identify the Flaw are just one of the question types that ask this of you.

Conclusion: few people understand current events.

Evidence: to understand current events one must appreciate their significance and have a sense of direct involvement with them. Newspapers get you an appreciation of their significance but not the direct involvement. Television gets you the direct involvement but not the appreciation of their significance. Finally, few people turn to sources other than newspapers and television for their news sources.

Reasoning: the conclusion failed to consider that most people may use both newspapers and television as sources of their news. Just because neither of these news sources is independently sufficient
does not mean that are collectively insufficient. Answer choice (A) just points out the argument's reasoning rests on the assumption that very few people, if any, would use both television and newspapers as news sources. For if most people did use both sources, then the argument's conclusion would fall apart.

Let's look at the incorrect answers:

(B) is irrelevant. Reasons other than attaining a full understanding of current events for reading newspapers and watching television are irrelevant in addressing a conclusion specifically about whether a full understanding of current events is likely.
(C) suggests an issue of allowing a key term to shift its meaning over the course of the argument. But "depth of coverage" is not used with two different meanings throughout the argument.
(D) is irrelevant. The argument does not evaluate the merits of having a full understanding of current events, so if there are drawbacks, it wouldn't affect the argument's reasoning.
(E) deals with a flaw that mistakes a claim about what could be the case for a claim about what is the case. This argument's conclusion is not a restatement of another claim regarding what is possible.

Hope that helps!

[Dy_Mahboob]

Can somebody break-down the answer choice "(A)" and explain why it's the correct choice? The second clause in answer choice (A) is suspicious.

Answer choice (A) text:
"Treats two things.." -> This is the television & newspapers
"..neither one of which can plausibly be seen as excluding the other..." -> Why not? Viewers can completely view one and skip the other.
".. as though they are mutual exclusive.." -> True, the argument does this.

It's the second clause in answer choice (A), that threw me off.

However, Answer choices (B) through to (E) are clearly incorrect, so I selected (A) only due to elimination.