Critical Reasoning

More citizens of Alphaville tune in to nightly news programs than do citizens of Bentonville. Thus, citizens of Alphaville know more about global issues than do

citizens of Bentonville.
The conclusion to the left is weakened by all of the following EXCEPT:
A The population of Alphaville is 2,000,000; the population of Bentonville is 1,000,000.

B
Citizens of Bentonville are more likely to listen to news radio programs than are citizens of Alphaville.

C
Citizens of Alphaville generally put the television on as background noise during dinner and chores, while citizens of Bentonville never watch television unless they

are paying full attention to it.

D
The nightly news programs in Alphaville are restricted to tabloid coverage of celebrities.

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

So, basically the conclusion is that citizens of A are better informed about global events than citizens of B because citizens of A watch more nightly news programs.

You can exclude anything that weakens the connection between the amount of news watched and how informed the person is.

Let's look at B. It does weaken the argument because it allows that citizens of B may get news from another source and so makes it at least possible that they know as much or more than citizens of A about global events. So, it's not the answer.

Let's look at C. Citizens of A are not paying attention and citizens of B watch fewer hours of news but really pay attention when they watch. The amount of attention paid could make the citizens of B better informed, despite their having watched fewer hours of televison news. It does weaken the argument, so it's not the answer.

Looking at D, you can see that by changing the content of nighly news to something that has nothing to do with global events, citizens of A would not be becoming better informed by tuning in, so it does weaken the argument that watching the news makes them better informed about global events.

A is the answer because the size of the towns has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not watching the news in A makes citizens of A more informed than citizens of B.

Make sense? Good luck, Himu!

IMO E.

E is irrelevant but all others considerably weaken the conclusion.

What is the OA?

The argument is based on assumption that if higher percentage of people of a place watch informative programmes then the people of that place are more informed.

Number of people watching news show in A > Number of people watching news show in B => higher percentage of people in A watch news channel and hence are more informed

This argument can be undermined if population of A much higher than B. Which is what option A tells us.

Only option E doesn't impact the argument

Hi,

I am sceptical about your reasoning. There is no discussion about proportion - it just states that citizens of A-ville are more well informed than B-ville.

Assume it is proportion, you could have 2 cases:

Case 1:
A-ville - Population - 2000 Citizens watching - 501
B-ville - Population - 1000 Citizens watching - 500

Conlusion weakened

Case 2:
A-ville - Population - 2000 Citizens watching - 1850
B-ville - Population - 1000 Citizens watching - 900

Conclusion is not weakened.

SO I rule out A


My reasoning for E is that since B-ville citizens have to pay to get access, that might deter them from watching the shows, thereby strengthening the idea that A-ville citizens know more about global issues.

This is the 2nd time i have seen this question - and it has raised flags then as well.

My answer is E

Can anyone tell me what is the correct answer for this?

Yes. I don't think I considered A the right way. It should be ruled out. Have to agree that E is best.