A
the editor believes that his newspaper carries unbiased opinion as people from different political parties are allowed to publish their articles in the editorial section.
He is under that assumption that these articles which have different opinions are evenly distributed over the year so that overall no favor for any party is extended.


OA plz.

karthikpandian19 wrote:Publisher: Many people in the international community have criticized the Slambovian national newspaper as being unfairly biased in favor of the nation's current administration. In the past year, however, the paper has run editorials written by members of many opposing political parties other than the current administration's political party. In fact, at least one member of every major political party in Slambovia has had an opportunity to write an editorial for the newspaper in the past year. The charges of bias, therefore, are clearly unfounded.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the publisher's argument depends?

(A) The editorials written by the members of various political parties were dispersed fairly evenly throughout the year so as to present a rotating set of viewpoints.
It does not matter whether the editorials by others were lumped together or were dispersed throughout the year. The argument is that because other party's members have been given a chance to write an editorial, newspaper isn't biased towards the current administration.No.

(B) Editorials in support of the current administration did not begin to appear less often in the months surrounding Slambovia's presidential elections.
This is at best neutral, and at worst, it weakens the argument. No.

(C) At least some of Slambovia's major political parties apart from that of the current administration have not been openly critical of the current administration.
We don't know that. Since all major parties got in at least one editorial, may be they all were openly critical. No.

(D) The members of the opposing political parties whose editorials appeared in the paper were permitted to express the views of their respective parties.
This is necessary for the argument. If the newspaper did not permit the other parties to expreess their views, some of which may have been damning to the existing administration, and only let the favorable views through, the publisher's argument that the newspaper is unbiased falls apart. CORRECT.

(E) Even members of unsanctioned political parties in Slambovia were permitted to publish editorials in the newspaper using pseudonyms.
This is more of a supporting statement than a required assumption. Who cares if unsanctioned parties also got a word in using pseudonyms. No.

Hence the correct answer should be D.

Spartacus,

Choice A speaks of the dispersal of the various editorials in various issues of the paper throughout the year. Unless there is some special significance to certain parts of the year that would make editorials more or less biased in favor the current administration (which we cannot assume based on the information we are given), choice A is irrelevant to the argument's conclusion.

spartacus1412 wrote:A
the editor believes that his newspaper carries unbiased opinion as people from different political parties are allowed to publish their articles in the editorial section.
He is under that assumption that these articles which have different opinions are evenly distributed over the year so that overall no favor for any party is extended.


OA plz.

OA is D

This question asks us to identify a necessary assumption. Based on the evidence that a member of every major opposing political party has had the opportunity to write an editorial for the newspaper, the argument concludes that the newspaper is not biased in favor of the current administration.

The flaw in the argument is that it conflates running editorials written by people who happen to have various political affiliations with running editorials that express various political opinions. The fact that the authors belonged to opposing political parties does not necessarily imply that they were free to express the opinions of those parties. The correct answer will likely point to this gap in logic.

Choice D is correct. Concluding that a paper is unbiased because it has run editorials by members of many different political parties requires the assumption that they were actually free to express the beliefs of their respective parties without censorship.

Choice A speaks of the dispersal of the various editorials in various issues of the paper throughout the year. Unless there is some special significance to certain parts of the year that would make editorials more or less biased in favor the current administration (which we cannot assume based on the information we are given), choice A is irrelevant to the argument's conclusion.

Choice B makes it difficult to apply the negation test by slipping two negations, "not" and "less," into the choice itself. Applying the negation test to this choice should weaken the argument: Editorials in support of the current administration did begin to appear less often in the months surrounding Slambovia's presidential elections. This negation only strengthens the idea that the paper is not biased, making this choice the opposite of a necessary assumption.

Choice C, like choice B, is the opposite of a necessary assumption. What the argument must assume is that at least some of Slambovia's major political parties have been openly critical of the administration. Applying the negation test to this choice only strengthens the conclusion.

Choice E is not a necessary assumption because not being biased in favor of one particular party (the current administration's) does not necessarily require being equally open to the viewpoints of all other political parties (including unsanctioned ones). In other words, the paper could still be not biased in favor of the current administration even without presenting the views of unsanctioned parties. Choice E is a trap because it seems like an inference that must be true. However, remember that this is an assumption question. Furthermore, choice E is not a valid inference because it might be that major political parties do not include unsanctioned political parties.

Choice D is correct.

karthikpandian19 wrote:Publisher: Many people in the international community have criticized the Slambovian national newspaper as being unfairly biased in favor of the nation's current administration. In the past year, however, the paper has run editorials written by members of many opposing political parties other than the current administration's political party. In fact, at least one member of every major political party in Slambovia has had an opportunity to write an editorial for the newspaper in the past year. The charges of bias, therefore, are clearly unfounded.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the publisher's argument depends?


(A) The editorials written by the members of various political parties were dispersed fairly evenly throughout the year so as to present a rotating set of viewpoints.

(B) Editorials in support of the current administration did not begin to appear less often in the months surrounding Slambovia's presidential elections.

(C) At least some of Slambovia's major political parties apart from that of the current administration have not been openly critical of the current administration.

(D) The members of the opposing political parties whose editorials appeared in the paper were permitted to express the views of their respective parties.

(E) Even members of unsanctioned political parties in Slambovia were permitted to publish editorials in the newspaper using pseudonyms