The media now devote more coverage to crime than they did ten years ago. Yet this is not because the crime rate has ...

AnthonyH June 17, 2020

Hi, re-posting in hopes of getting a response. This has been a sticking point for me thus far...

Thanks again,

Anthony

AnthonyH June 25, 2020

Hi again! Re-posting to ensure this does't get lost in the herd. Any insight here would be helpful.

Thanks,

A.

hjordan1217 July 11, 2020

Can we get a response to @AnthonyH. I struggle with the causal relationship as well

shunhe July 17, 2020

Hi @AnthonyH and @hjordan1217,

Thanks for the question! So here, the actual structure of the argument is going to be as follows:

Premise: Media devote more coverage to crime now than they did 10 years ago
Premise: Crucial factor in media’s decisions about what issues to cover and to what extent to cover them is the interests of their audiences
Conclusion: More coverage to crime isn’t because the crime rate has increased, but rather because the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime

Which is why (B) is wrong and (E) is going to be right here. And if you’re having troubles thinking about the causal relationship, try to think about it the other way around, flip one of the premises with the conclusion and see if it still make sense:

Premise: Media devote more coverage to crime now than they did 10 years ago
Premise: More coverage to crime isn’t because the crime rate has increased, but rather because the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime
Conclusion: Crucial factor in media’s decisions about what issues to cover and to what extent to cover them is the interests of their audiences

Does this argument make sense? What we’re saying is here is that the media’s decisions about what they cover is based on their audiences. And why? Because the public is more interested and reading and hearing about crime? That doesn’t make sense, the first one just flows much more logically, and so we know that the first construction is the right one, and that the public being more interested in hearing and reading about crime is a conclusion that’s an alternative explanation of why the media devote more coverage to crime now than they did ten years ago.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

Marcelle August 16, 2021

I don't know if there is any other way to explain this question but I still do not understand why the conclusion isn't "Media devote coverage to crime now than they did 10 years ago". I believe this because the other two statements explain why this is. Isn't that the point of a premise?

Dredd November 15, 2021

I would like some additional info on this one. B seems to be explaining exactly what the question is asking for while E doesn't feel like an "alternative" . I guess I'm confused on how E is a better answer when B seems to be what the text explicitly states.

brian.eugene.smith@gmail.com August 16, 2022

Hello,

I have an additional clarification question to Shunhe's response above which is the same as Marcelle's question as well. Please explain why the structure of the argument can not be as listed below.

Premise: More coverage to crime isn’t because the crime rate has increased, but rather because the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime
Premise: Crucial factor in media’s decisions about what issues to cover and to what extent to cover them is the interests of their audiences
Conclusion: Media devote more coverage to crime now than they did 10 years ago

Thank you,

Brian

Emil-Kunkin August 29, 2022

Hi Brian,

The first sentence is not the conclusion. That is a fact that in turn supports the authors conclusion