Critical Reasoning

I was stuck between the 2 but I guess this is one of the classic questions which pop on CR. It isn't about selecting the better option, but about selecting the best option.

I have a slight disagreement with Vivian's logic though. Except questions to weaken do not mean that the answer choice always strengthens the argument. It could also be that the answer choice is neutral (as long as the answer choice does not weaken the argument).

In this case, though we have an answer choice that strengthens the argument.

Regards
Anup

i dont see how E strengthens. i think it is irrelevant that citizens of B need to pay. as long as we now that people are paying we dont need to know anything else. i find no basis on how vivian concluded that access is limited. considering need to pay as limited access is a stretch. what if people are rich. moreover, one can consider E that weakens - since people are paying they will listen more attentively and hence more informed.

vikram4689 wrote:i dont see how E strengthens. i think it is irrelevant that citizens of B need to pay. as long as we now that people are paying we dont need to know anything else. i find no basis on how vivian concluded that access is limited. considering need to pay as limited access is a stretch. what if people are rich. moreover, one can consider E that weakens - since people are paying they will listen more attentively and hence more informed.

Vikram,

Well E states as such:

E Citizens in Bentonville can view nightly news programs only by purchasing cable television access.

The focus is not on needing to pay but rather that the access is limited due to the fact that they need to pay.

B-ville citizens can view nightly news program only by purchasing cable television access and there is a premise that states that more citizens of Alphaville tune in to nightly news programs than do citizens of Bentonville. The assumption is that A-ville citizens have access to nightly news programs easily as compared to that of B-ville citizens. Hence it strengthens the argument that A-ville is more globally aware. (due to the fact that they can access the news easier).

As to people being rich or listening more attentively, none of the premises support these assumptions.

Regards
Anup

The assumption is that A-ville citizens have access to nightly news programs easily as compared to that of B-ville citizens. Hence it strengthens the argument that A-ville is more globally aware. (due to the fact that they can access the news easier).

first of all nothing in argument suggests that A does not have to pay. and we cannot say an option strengthens while that options ASSUMES something

second, if both A & B have 50 people and 15 people in A and 10 in B listen to news. argument says since more people in A listen to news, A is more informed. how does "need to pay" strengthens this argument ???. it is irrelevant - as long as number of people (10 here) in B listening to news is unaffected we dont care if B pays to listen OR if someone pays B to listen i.e. motivation for listening is irrevalent


for following, i did mention that one can consider (hypothetically) in the same manner i.e. i already accept that none of the info. in arg. supports this but i raised it to show that whatever was being considered above is un-substantiated in similar way.

As to people being rich or listening more attentively, none of the premises support these assumptions.

vikram4689 wrote:

The assumption is that A-ville citizens have access to nightly news programs easily as compared to that of B-ville citizens. Hence it strengthens the argument that A-ville is more globally aware. (due to the fact that they can access the news easier).

first of all nothing in argument suggests that A does not have to pay. and we cannot say an option strengthens while that options ASSUMES something

second, if both A & B have 50 people and 15 people in A and 10 in B listen to news. argument says since more people in A listen to news, A is more informed. how does "need to pay" strengthens this argument ???. it is irrelevant - as long as number of people (10 here) in B listening to news is unaffected we dont care if B pays to listen OR if someone pays B to listen i.e. motivation for listening is irrevalent


for following, i did mention that one can consider (hypothetically) in the same manner i.e. i already accept that none of the info. in arg. supports this but i raised it to show that whatever was being considered above is un-substantiated in similar way.

As to people being rich or listening more attentively, none of the premises support these assumptions.

Hey Vikram,

Taking your first statement, there is nothing in the argument that states that A has to pay. The answer choice basically states that because B-ville has to pay (no info on A-ville - agreed. Since there is none, we don't consider anything), they have an access issue as compared to A-ville. Because they have an access issue to the news, they cannot watch the news, like A-ville citizens do. Hence they are not globally aware. And it's all about watching the news, not listening to the news.

Regards
Anup

although you quoted the statements, you did not read what i mentioned.

Taking your first statement, there is nothing in the argument that states that A has to pay.

i already mentioned about it. it's in the quote as well !!

And it's all about watching the news, not listening to the news.

this shows that you tried you debunk the reasoning i asked for. i provided a situation similar to that in argument and asked for your reasoning... do mention if you have any