Critical Reasoning

rishab1988 wrote:

I would go for B

The argument has 2 main premises

1) The background of conflicting parties engaged in Civil Wars and conflicts must be reported in a balanced way with each side being fairly represented

Then comes a slight scope shift that contradicts the first premise

2) Reporting should not be balanced to the point that, for the sake of balance, injustices being practiced by any particular side are disguised because that gives the public an impression that both parties are in the right.

As this is a 'Main point' question, there is no conclusion in the argument itself so we will need to try and guess our own:

Adding the 2 premises together, we can assume the following: Reporting should be fair but not to the extent that an injustice being practiced by any one side is disguised.

Looking at the answers:

A) This is an opposite answer. The argument states that injustices, if they are present, must be accurately reported so that the public can understand who is right and who is wrong.

B) Correct! This answer choice combines both the premises accurately and this reflects the argument as a whole.

C) Out of scope. This argument has to do with balanced reporting and does not talk about life experiences anywhere. It also says nothing about all conflicts always having one party that has wronged.

D) Tempting answer but it only includes 1 of the 2 premises stated in the argument. Compared to B which includes both balanced reporting and correctly reporting injustices, D loses out.

E) Out of scope.

I'm going with D on this one...

P1: Balanced reporting requires that facts not be deliberately manipulated to show one party in a favorable light.
P2: Balanced reporting requires that each side be fairly represented.
P3: Balanced reporting does not include concealing injustices in an effort to be even-handed.
P4: If all the media were to conceal injustices in an effort to be even-handed, the public would be given a picture of a world where each party in every conflict had an equal measure of justice on its side. This is contrary to our experience of life and our common sense.
C1: Balanced reporting is particularly important when reporting the background of civil wars and conflicts.

Which of the following best expresses the main point of the argument?

I disagree with Ravish on the point that since this is a "Main Point" question there is no conclusion. I believe this passage has a conclusion and the question stem is asking us to identify it. I may be wrong about this but I'm going to proceed under this assumption.

I believe the conclusion is the first sentence, "Balanced reporting is particularly important when reporting the background of civil wars and conflicts". Why is this the conclusion? Look at each of the premises I have listed above. Read each premise individually while adding "since" before each premise and "therefore" before the conclusion.

For example,

Premise: "Since balanced reporting requires that facts not be deliberately manipulated to show one party in a favorable light".
Conclusion: "Therefore, balanced reporting is particularly important when reporting the background of civil wars and conflicts."

Premise: "Since balanced reporting requires that each side be fairly represented.".
Conclusion: "Therefore, balanced reporting is particularly important when reporting the background of civil wars and conflicts."

Premise: "Balanced reporting does not include concealing injustices in an effort to be even-handed."
Premise: "If all the media were to conceal injustices in an effort to be even-handed, the public would be given a picture of a world where each party in every conflict had an equal measure of justice on its side. This is contrary to our experience of life and our common sense.
Assumption: "Civil wars and conflicts contain injustices.
Conclusion: "Therefore, balanced reporting is particularly important when reporting the background of civil wars and conflicts."

In my opinion, every premise supports the conclusion that balanced reporting is needed when reporting the background of civil wars and conflicts. We need an answer that restates this conclusion.

(A) "Balanced reporting presents the public with a picture of the world in which all sides to a conflict have equal justification". Incorrect. This answer states the opposite of the meaning of balanced reporting. This answer is not the conclusion and it is not even a premise.

(B) "Balanced reporting requires impartially revealing injustices where they occur no less than fairly presenting the views of each party in a conflict". Incorrect. This answer restates the first three premises. This is not the conclusion.

(C) "Our experiences of life shows that there are indeed cases in which conflicts arise because of an injustice, with one party clearly in the wrong" Incorrect. This is a paraphrase of the last part of the final premise. Again, this is a premise and not the conclusion.

(D) "Common sense tells us that balance is especially needed when reporting the background of civil wars and conflicts". Correct. This answer restates the first line of the passage. In my opinion, this is the conclusion of the passage and therefore the passage's main point.

(E) "Balanced reporting is an ideal that cannot be realized, because judgments of balance are necessarily subjective" Incorrect. The passage does not imply this. The passage give specific guidelines as to what balanced reporting is and what it is not. It never suggests that balanced reporting is unattainable.

This was a tricky one and I'm still not 100% sure about the answer... I'll be interested in seeing the OA for this one...

B seems the best.

Why is same question posted twice by the same author ?
This question was posted earlier -
https://www.beatthegmat.com/cr-brutal-q1 ... 70522.html

BTW, whats the OA ?

@rkanthilal

As per my understanding, there is a fine line between Main point and conclusion. Conclusion could be a decision that one can come to after tying up 3 premises together whereas, with main points, the answer is supposed to encapsulate the entire argument.

Take for example Reading Comp. If a question asks you what the main point of the passage is, you wouldn't pick a decision that the author makes in the last line of the 3rd paragraph rather, you would look for an answer that contains a pattern shared by all 3 paragraphs.

If, as per your analysis, the first part really is the conclusion, then one could just as well claim that the conclusion could also be 'Reporting should not be balanced to the extent that injustices are disguised'. Both premises seem to have equal weight in the passage so i doubt you can choose one over the other.

Rishab, can we get the OA?

OA is B

Ravish wrote:@rkanthilal

As per my understanding, there is a fine line between Main point and conclusion. Conclusion could be a decision that one can come to after tying up 3 premises together whereas, with main points, the answer is supposed to encapsulate the entire argument.

Yes... That's a good point...