#5 - Political opinion and analysis outside the mainstream

[jiyounglee]

Hello powerscore,

I have a trouble with this question.

I believe I have correctly broken down the stimulus, which is indicated below:

Premise 1: In fact, television stations are driven by the same economic forces as sellers of more tangible goods.

Premise 2: Because they must attempt to capture the largest possible share of the television audience for their shows, they air only those shows that will appeal to large numbers of people

Intermediate conclusion: Political opinions and analysis outside the mainstream rarely found on television talk shows, and it might be thought that this state of affairs is a product of the political agenda of the television stations themselves.

Conclusion: political opinions and analyses aired on television talk shows are typically bland and innocuous.

Then, to go over each answer choice (with assumption negation technique):

A: incorrect - irrelevant (it does not matter whether television station executives have opinions or not because their opinions would not be reflected on television shows)

B (with assumption negation): bland and innocuous political opinions and analyses are NOT generally in the mainstream
-> why does this weaken the conclusion? I believe this is also irrelevant to conclusion because even though bland and innocuous political opinions and analyses are not generally in the mainstream that means some are in the mainstream.

C (with assumption negation): political analysts outside the mainstream are not relatively indifferent to the effect their analyses have on television viewers
-> this is what I chose for the answer because if they are not indifferent, wouldn't it weaken the intermediate conclusion? it might not be thought that this state of affairs is a product of political agenda of the television stations themselves.

D: incorrect - irrelevant

E (with assumption negation): the political opinions of television station executives are often reflected in the television shows their stations produce
-> Im confused with this answer choice as well as it weakens conclusion. if political opinions of television station executives are reflected, political opinions and analyses aired on television talk shows wouldn't be "typically" bland and innocuous.
(am I making an unwarranted assumption here?)

I have a difficulty in assumption question.
Is there a way to improve on assumption type questions?
Thank you in advance!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi jiyounglee,

Thanks for the question! You're definitely right that you want to apply the assumption negation technique to this one. And your analysis for A and D is spot on.

Let's take a look at B again. Your negation was correct, but I think maybe you're missing how that impacts the argument. Essentially, the argument is that stations need to appeal to large numbers of people, which requires analysis that is within the mainstream, and as a result they air plan and innocuous content. If bland and innocuous content is NOT in the mainstream, though, the whole argument falls apart. Does that make sense?

With C, it doesn't matter really whether the analysts are indifferent; the argument indicates they don't really control the content anyway, but rather market forces do, so C is irrelevant just like A is.

[Johnclem]

Hello,
I am having trouble accepting the last sentence as the conclusion.. it just doesn't make sense to me! I feel everything in the paragraph is supporting the first sentence.

I really don't get how the last sentence is the conclusion, I mean shouldn't be that BECAUSE - they are bland they are not found on TV ? Rather than because they are not found on TV they are bland ?! I'm super lost .


c: political opinion and analysis outside the mainstream are rarely found on talk shows.

1- tv stations are are driven by the same economic forces as sellers of more tangible goods .
2- the want to capture the largest audience for their shows
3- political opinions and analysis aired on tv are bland and innocuous


Thanks
John

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, John,

Take a step back from the stimulus. Read it once all the way through. Then come back to it step by step. This stimulus is pretty dry. I can see how nothing might jump out at you, but you still have tools at your disposal. Consider each statement and determine whether it is either a statement of fact or something that has evidence to back it up.

First statement: Non-mainstream political opinion is rarely found on talk shows fact

Second statement: Statement author clearly disagrees with

Third statement: Stations driven by economic forces fact

Fourth statement: Stations attempt to capture large audiences fact

Fifth statement: Stations air shows that appeal to lots of people subordinate conclusion (effect) from previous fact (cause)

Sixth statement: Bland and innocuous political opinions main conclusion (effect) from previous subordinate conclusion (cause)

Look at the indicator words that join the fourth, fifth, and sixth statements. The indicator word "because" before the fourth statement indicates that it is a premise for the fifth statement. The indicator words "as a result" at the beginning of the sixth statement indicate that the author attempts to show that it follows from the fifth statement.

Now consider the first statement and rephrase/paraphrase it thus: "Political opinion found on talk shows is generally mainstream."

Now compare this statement to the sixth statement: "Political opinion found on talk shows is generally bland and innocuous."

The argument sets out to establish an equivalence between the concepts "bland and innocuous" and "mainstream." The first statement is offered as a declarative statement. The sixth statement is given as the terminal conclusion that purportedly follows from the previous facts. Since a conclusion must have evidence backing it up, the sixth statement is indeed the conclusion. Now you can consider the connection, the shift in concepts between "bland and innocuous" and "mainstream."

Answer choice B gives you an essential belief that the author must have in order for his conclusion to follow. At a minimum, he must believe that there is a positive correlation between whether a political opinion is "bland and innocuous" and whether it is "mainstream."

[babycorn]

I thought the last sentence was the main conclusion, but in the discussion posts for question #4 (page 2), another PowerScore staff named Kristina said that it isn't actually the conclusion. What you refer to here as the second statement, she said that was the main conclusion.
I'm confused as heck now! Help

Hi, John,

Take a step back from the stimulus. Read it once all the way through. Then come back to it step by step. This stimulus is pretty dry. I can see how nothing might jump out at you, but you still have tools at your disposal. Consider each statement and determine whether it is either a statement of fact or something that has evidence to back it up.

First statement: Non-mainstream political opinion is rarely found on talk shows fact

Second statement: Statement author clearly disagrees with

Third statement: Stations driven by economic forces fact

Fourth statement: Stations attempt to capture large audiences fact

Fifth statement: Stations air shows that appeal to lots of people subordinate conclusion (effect) from previous fact (cause)

Sixth statement: Bland and innocuous political opinions main conclusion (effect) from previous subordinate conclusion (cause)

Look at the indicator words that join the fourth, fifth, and sixth statements. The indicator word "because" before the fourth statement indicates that it is a premise for the fifth statement. The indicator words "as a result" at the beginning of the sixth statement indicate that the author attempts to show that it follows from the fifth statement.

Now consider the first statement and rephrase/paraphrase it thus: "Political opinion found on talk shows is generally mainstream."

Now compare this statement to the sixth statement: "Political opinion found on talk shows is generally bland and innocuous."

The argument sets out to establish an equivalence between the concepts "bland and innocuous" and "mainstream." The first statement is offered as a declarative statement. The sixth statement is given as the terminal conclusion that purportedly follows from the previous facts. Since a conclusion must have evidence backing it up, the sixth statement is indeed the conclusion. Now you can consider the connection, the shift in concepts between "bland and innocuous" and "mainstream."

Answer choice B gives you an essential belief that the author must have in order for his conclusion to follow. At a minimum, he must believe that there is a positive correlation between whether a political opinion is "bland and innocuous" and whether it is "mainstream."

[Robert Carroll]

babycorn,

I think there is a way to reconcile both sources. Let's simplify the argument:

"Some people say political agendas cause TV talk shows to be so mainstream. Actually, that fact can be explained by economic reasons instead."

The conclusion is that TV talk shows are limited to mainstream opinions for economic, not political, reasons.

The "as a result" indicator in the last sentence is not actually an indicator of a conclusion - Kristen is right about that! It's an indication of causation. A way to express the last sentence would be "Economic factors are causing shows to be bland." Coincidentally, that statement, with "as a result" fleshed out to include what it's the result of, is intended to restate the conclusion that's also expressed earlier, in the second sentence. The causal use of "as a result" is making that tough to untangle, but the last sentence is the conclusion here.

Robert Carroll