Critical Reasoning

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.

Why is A not correct?

IMO B
conclusion: media is sometimes guided by moral principles and doesn't do anything for ratings.
A)This doesn't mention anything regarding moral principles or ratings..
B) Even though the ratings will decrease, info was not made public.
C) Out of scope.
D) This shows the motive of high rating..
E) Reason is fear of getting banned...incorrect

IMO:B
If I paraphrase the CR, which should be the right way to do it, I need to strengthen the conclusion that is stated in the starting line of the stimulus.
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
Hence I need to show that instead of going for increase in TRP the news media goes for Moral principle.
B just states that and reinforces and thus strenthens the argument.

A -> Does not strengthen the conclusion.Rather talks about an out of scope argument that would in fact weaken the argument.
c -> Out of Scope.
D -> Weakens the argument.
E -> Out of scope.

@cans:
B) Even though the ratings will decrease, info was not made public.
>> Did you mean "increase" here?

I agree that B is the right answer primarily because TV networks are assured of the candidate's victory.

Also, one point in the argument is that the "TV Networks" are assured that the candidate will be victorious. What if that was just a probability or a guesstimate? Would B would have been still right or would A have pictured then. Because not opening the results might also be out of fear that it would decrease the rating if the prediction is wrong.

I am not sure if the Out of Scope or does not contain anything regarding moral principles would work here even if there is no "if true" constraint in the question. If the networks have endorsed the candidate then it is quite likely that they are biased and would promote the candidate more to affect the West polls which they didnot do because it was morally not correct.

nileshdalvi wrote:@cans:
B) Even though the ratings will decrease, info was not made public.
>> Did you mean "increase" here?

I agree that B is the right answer primarily because TV networks are assured of the candidate's victory.

Also, one point in the argument is that the "TV Networks" are assured that the candidate will be victorious. What if that was just a probability or a guesstimate? Would B would have been still right or would A have pictured then. Because not opening the results might also be out of fear that it would decrease the rating if the prediction is wrong.

I meant decrease only...

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.

Ratings will decrease if winner not predicted..

nileshdalvi wrote:I am not sure if the Out of Scope or does not contain anything regarding moral principles would work here even if there is no "if true" constraint in the question. If the networks have endorsed the candidate then it is quite likely that they are biased and would promote the candidate more to affect the West polls which they didnot do because it was morally not correct.

Maybe, but the conclusion is "they don't go for ratings - they go for morals". If A is true, then it might indicate a moral standpoint taken by the network - but this moral stand is pitted against a "gains" from acting immorally that is not measured in ratings, but in other means i.e. the rise of their chosen candidate. B better strengthens the argument by correctly pitting "morals" against "ratings" - the network could get more ratings if they predicted the winner, but chose to forego these ratings because of a moral standpoint not to affect other votes, and thus is a better answer than A.

Also, and I admit this goes way deeper into the US voting system than might be expected of a non-American, answer choice A can be flipped and interpreted as an immoral stand as well.

If the network ups and publishes that their chosen candidate has won the east, the republican voters in the west may not feel the need to go out and vote ("this thing is won already"), whereas the western voters of the opposing candidates may actually be spurred to higher attendance in order to upend the eastern result. Thus, publishing the fact that the candidate has won the east coast before the western votes are in may even affect the western vote in a way that is runs counter to the networks's interests, so not publishing the eastern votes may not be a moral stand, but actually supports the networks own selfish interests.

A and B are the only close option.

B stands tall

heheh...that was a really good flip Geva...

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:

nileshdalvi wrote:I am not sure if the Out of Scope or does not contain anything regarding moral principles would work here even if there is no "if true" constraint in the question. If the networks have endorsed the candidate then it is quite likely that they are biased and would promote the candidate more to affect the West polls which they didnot do because it was morally not correct.

Maybe, but the conclusion is "they don't go for ratings - they go for morals". If A is true, then it might indicate a moral standpoint taken by the network - but this moral stand is pitted against a "gains" from acting immorally that is not measured in ratings, but in other means i.e. the rise of their chosen candidate. B better strengthens the argument by correctly pitting "morals" against "ratings" - the network could get more ratings if they predicted the winner, but chose to forego these ratings because of a moral standpoint not to affect other votes, and thus is a better answer than A.

Also, and I admit this goes way deeper into the US voting system than might be expected of a non-American, answer choice A can be flipped and interpreted as an immoral stand as well.

If the network ups and publishes that their chosen candidate has won the east, the republican voters in the west may not feel the need to go out and vote ("this thing is won already"), whereas the western voters of the opposing candidates may actually be spurred to higher attendance in order to upend the eastern result. Thus, publishing the fact that the candidate has won the east coast before the western votes are in may even affect the western vote in a way that is runs counter to the networks's interests, so not publishing the eastern votes may not be a moral stand, but actually supports the networks own selfish interests.

succinct and pointed as usual. I liked how you delineate the argument by showing how morals and ratings are "pitted" against one another. It makes clear that BOTH elements have to be in the answer choice.

its a clean B.rest all other options are weakening mostly.