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

Hello, Starting a new thread so it is easier to follow. Shunehe gave the response below to the question about identifying the conclusion, but it leaves out another possible structure of the argument which I believe can be just as logical as the what he describes as the 'actual structure of the argument.' The alternative structure I mention is below Shunehe's response. "...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" 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 Thanks again. Brian