The media now devote more coverage to crime than they did ten years ago. Yet this is not because the crime rate has ...
MEl5July 4, 2023
How exactly did we reach the conclusio?
I am having trouble with this one because, to me, it seems like the first sentence is the conclusion. People are watching the news much more than they did 10 years ago...Why you ask? Because people are more interested in watching crime. This is obviously not verbatim. But the first sentence appears to be a finding, and the following sentences appear to act as support for this finding. How is this not true and, in fact, the opposite?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Hi, the second sentence is acting to explain why the first sentence has happened. The passage doesn't exactly tell us that people are watching more news than they used to, it tells us that what has changed is that they are more interested in crime than they used to.
You're right that the first sentence is a finding, however, the rest of the passage is explaining why that finding happened. The conclusion isn't that the finding did happen, it's why the finding happened.
