Critical Reasoning

44. The news media is often accused of being willing to do anything for ratings. However, recent action by a television network indicates that the news media is sometimes guided by moral principle. This network had discovered through polling voters on the east coast that the Republican candidate for President had garnered enough votes to ensure victory before the polls closed on the west coast. However, the network withheld this information until the polls on the west coast closed so that the information would not affect the outcome of key congressional races.

Which one of the following most strengthens the argument?
(A) The network had endorsed the Republican candidate for President.
(B) The network expected its ratings to increase if it predicted the winner of the presidential race, and to decrease if did not predict the winner.
(C) A rival network did predict a winner of the presidential race before the polls on the west coast closed.
(D) The network believed that it would receive higher ratings by not predicting the winner of the presidential race.
(E) The network feared that predicting the winner of the presidential race could so anger Congress that it might enact legislation preventing all future polling outside of voting centers.

Hi,

The argument: Network's do anything for ratings BUT recent example shows otherwise.

Example: Network did not predict a winner.

Strengthener would show that if they predicted the winner the ratings would rise but still they did not. Hence they were guided by more than just ratings.

IMO B

Please share the OA.

(A) seems like a good trap. As it might mean that the channel has other intentions (apart from morals or ratings). But the argument never says how the polls will be affected if the info is leaked or which way they might swing the remaining races or whatever.

I am no expert, but I do hope I am correct!!

A and B are the probable answers.
I will go for A!!

Since A states that the network already endorsed the candidate and by revealing his position in east coast they could have influenced decision in west coast and their endorsed candidate would have won.

B states that the network expected a rise in ratings in case they predicted the correct winner but they cannot be sure that it will work out that way.

I don't know A looks a better answer to me.

This network had discovered through polling voters on the east coast that the Republican candidate for President had garnered enough votes to ensure victory before the polls closed on the west coast.

This is evidence and true that their prediction will be correct. The evidence in GMAT passages is always true in my opinion.

Eagerly awaiting the OA.

Mixed with B and C.

Will stick with B[/spoiler]

OA - B

Ta