The argument says that everyone should have access to more than one newspaper, for there are at least two sides to every story. Since all sides of an important story should be covered, and no newspapers adequately covers all sides of all stories, some important stories would be inadequately covered if there were only one newspaper. Notice that the argument shifts from saying no newspaper adequately covers all sides of all stories leaving open the possibility that some stories are adequately covered and some are not, to then concluding that some important stories would be inadequately covered. Well, how do we know that the subset of stories that are not adequately covered are all important stories? is not it equally likely that newspapers adequately cover all important stories and some of the less important stories are not adequately covered?
This flaw is accurately expressed in the answer choice (A). The issue with (B) is that it forces you to conclude that if A is true then its opposite B must be false - the argument tells us that only one newspaper cannot adequately cover some important stories, but the argument never says anything about two newspapers. We cannot infer that because one is not enough, two is enough - and the author never attempts to say that two is enough as (B) appears to suggest.
Does this make sense?
Let me know if you have any further questions.
tomgbeanNovember 30, 2019
Does the fact that the passage same "some important news stories will not be covered" negate your claim that the subset of stories not adequately covered are all important stories?"
Emil-KunkinMarch 27, 2023
It does not. That claim is the conclusion, not a premise, and the author has failed to justify their conclusion.
