The media now devote more coverage to crime than they did ten years ago. Yet this is not because the crime rate has ...
KiaBrodersenSeptember 22, 2023
The "Why" Test Does Not Work in this situation.
If you put what is said to be the conclusion into the why test as:
"Why is it true that the media covers more crime than 10 years ago? Because the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime."
I think the reason everyone thinks the first sentence is the conclusion is because the "Why" test as it is above, supports the idea that "the Media covers more crime than 10 years ago".
I went back and watched the video for the "why" test explanation, and it is said to be used as a fail-safe for when you're unsure which is the subsidiary conclusion and which is the main conclusion. Can someone please explain this to me?
Thank you.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
I can't edit my above post, but I meant to say: if you put what is said to be the main conclusion in the "Why test" then it doesn't make sense. The said main conclusion is "the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime."
Why Test: "Why is it true that the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime? Because the media covers more crime now than 10 years ago."
That doesn't make sense with the main conclusion being the first part of the why test. It makes more sense to put it "The media covers more crime now than 10 years ago" as the first part and then the "the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime" as the second part. According to the Why Test, this would mean that "Media covering more crime than 10 years ago" is the main conclusion"
Emil-KunkinSeptember 29, 2023
I agree that the because/therefore test doesn't work too well here. When we look at it in a vacuum, it seems pretty plausible that the last sentence could be direct support for the first one.
However, in the context of the argument, this makes little sense, the argument states a fact, and then offers multiple explanations for that fact. If we are trying to explain a fact, the conclusion is the thing that the author thinks explains the fact, rather than the fact itself. The only way to prove a fact would be statistics or eyewitness testimony or something to that effect. I think this is a good little caveat to the why/therefore/because test: it really only applies to statements that the author could be trying to prove. If there's a statement that, in the context of the argument isn't something the author is trying to support, then the test isn't really useful.
Here the final sentence could hypothetically EXPLAIN why the media have done something, but it doesn't directly provide support for that claim.
