The media now devote more coverage to crime than they did ten years ago. Yet this is not because the crime rate has ...
TejasMay 8, 2020
Q 29 Conclusion
I think the statement "The media now devote more coverage to crime than they did ten years ago." is the conclusion but the explanation in review tells something else is the conclusion
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
The conclusion of this passage is that the increase in crime coverage is a result of the increase in public interest regarding crime and not due to an increase in crime rate.
When trying to determine the role that a statement plays in an argument, remember that explanations of facts/phenomena are usually the main point of the argument (i.e. the conclusion).
Additionally, conclusions are parts of arguments which can be refuted. Here, the author believes that the increase in crime coverage is due to the increase in public interest in crime. This conclusion could be refuted by an alternate explanation e.g. I believe that the increase in crime coverage is a result of political influence.
The statement "the media now devotes more coverage to crime than they did ten years ago" is not a conclusion because it is a fact supporting the argument. There is no 'grey' to this claim: either the media devotes more coverage to crime than they did ten years ago, or they do not. Either way, this is a fact/phenomena which the passage is trying to explain and not the conclusion of the passage.
Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
