The format of network television news programs generally allows advocates of a point of view only 30 seconds to conve...
AndrewArabieApril 17, 2023
I don't see how A weakens
I think A is trying to weaken it by establishing a causal relationship between watching news on TV and reading newspapers but all "most likely" does is set up a correlation.
The conclusion is that watching TV increases the tendency for one to think oversimplified terms. If most people who watch TV also read newspapers, they may not be thinking in oversimplified terms since the newspapers remedy the sloganeering but that doesn't weaken the idea of a causal relationship between regular watching of television and oversimplification.
If the correct AC said something like "regular watching of television causes viewers to read newspapers" then that would weaken it but as it stands I don't understand how it weakens.
There's another conclusion that goes something like "so the expectation of careful discussion disappears from social awareness."
Is that the actual conclusion and I misread the argument? Because if thats the actual conclusion then I see how the AC weakens. If thats the real conclusion then I need to do more work on that.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
In short I guess I'm saying I don't see how it matters that most TV watchers also read newspapers because the conclusion is about TV consumption increasing the tendency to think in oversimplified terms and most of those people reading newspapers has no impact on the relationship between tv watching and increasing tendency to think in oversimplified terms.
Emil-KunkinApril 18, 2023
Hi, a weakener doesn't need to destroy the argument, just undermine it to some degree. I think that the mere suggestion of a causal relationship could potentially undermine the conclusion.
However, I don't think we need that causal connection. The author is trying to draw a contrast between two things, but A shows that this contrast is artificial. Rather than these two behaviors being diametrically opposed, we actually see them together quite often. If A were true, how would it make sense that the same people are both being responsible citizens and also thinking only in catchphrases?
As for the conclusion, I think the final sentence is the overall point the author is trying to prove.
