- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: Dec 15, 2011
- Thu May 02, 2024 6:44 pm
#106289
Hi lemonade,
Good question.
Let's think about the information we trust (the premises) and the conclusion we don't.
Premise(s): The Gazette-Standard hired more editors. The Gazette-Standard prints significantly more corrections than their leading competitor.
Conclusion: Hiring did not help them avoid errors.
We need an answer choice that acknowledges and is consistent with the premises. For answer choice (D), we don't have any reason to think more eyes means more people finding errors. Additionally, that wouldn't explain why the Gazette-Standard has so many factual corrections compared to the competitor. If more editors were looking, wouldn't they print fewer errors? For answer choice (E), we have the same issue. Even if the statement were true (that the editor positions resulted in fewer reporters) it doesn't really impact the idea of how the editors resolving the issue of the frequency of errors.
Answer choice (C) explains why we can't connect the premises to the conclusion. The premises are still true (they are printing more retractions and there are more editors). BUT they are doing so not because they make more errors, but because they FIND more errors. Answer choice (C) weakens the idea that the explanation for the factual errors is that they make more than their competitors by giving us an alternative explanation.
Hope that helps!
Good question.
Let's think about the information we trust (the premises) and the conclusion we don't.
Premise(s): The Gazette-Standard hired more editors. The Gazette-Standard prints significantly more corrections than their leading competitor.
Conclusion: Hiring did not help them avoid errors.
We need an answer choice that acknowledges and is consistent with the premises. For answer choice (D), we don't have any reason to think more eyes means more people finding errors. Additionally, that wouldn't explain why the Gazette-Standard has so many factual corrections compared to the competitor. If more editors were looking, wouldn't they print fewer errors? For answer choice (E), we have the same issue. Even if the statement were true (that the editor positions resulted in fewer reporters) it doesn't really impact the idea of how the editors resolving the issue of the frequency of errors.
Answer choice (C) explains why we can't connect the premises to the conclusion. The premises are still true (they are printing more retractions and there are more editors). BUT they are doing so not because they make more errors, but because they FIND more errors. Answer choice (C) weakens the idea that the explanation for the factual errors is that they make more than their competitors by giving us an alternative explanation.
Hope that helps!