Logical reasoning PrepTest 110 · Section 3 · Question 26

Incorrect. The argument doesn't discuss how much coverage is justified, so this answer is out of scope (It's possible that the lack of crime coverage a decade ago was unjustifiably low and now it's more in line with what is appropriate). The statement in question also is the main point, it's not a premise supporting the main point.

Incorrect. This gets the "direction" of the argument wrong. The way that media coverage is determined supports this explanation for the increased rate of crime coverage not the other way around. (The structural keywords support this interpretation of the logic as well.)

Incorrect. It's not a counterexample to that claim; it's an explanation of that claim.

Incorrect. It serves as an alternative explanation to the crime rate increasing so it's not a generalization based on that increase.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon — More media coverage is devoted to crime than a decade ago
Wrong explanation — The crime rate increased
Right explanation — The public is more interested in crime
Support — The media covers what the people want to hear about

Answer Anticipation:
When an Argument Structure question features a common pattern of reasoning, using that pattern to help you define the role of the statement in question can be a great way to efficiently tackle the question.

Here, the argument falls into the phenomenon/explanation pattern. The argument opens with the phenomenon—the higher rate of crime coverage—and then rules out one explanation before settling on another. It then supports that explanation with some information about how media coverage is determined.

In this pattern, the author's explanation of the phenomenon is almost always the main point. That's backed up here by that explanation being followed up with an "After all" statement (generally a premise supporting the preceding sentence) that explains why the explanation makes sense. Since the statement in question is that explanation we should look for an answer that says it's the main point of the argument. It may even frame it as an explanation—and potentially an alternative explanation that better explains the facts since there is an opposing explanation presented as well.

Answer Explanation:
This answer lines up with our anticipation almost perfectly. A phenomenon and its two competing explanations serve as the backbone for this argument. The author's explanation is the statement in question and it serves as an alternative explanation for the increased crime coverage to the increase in the crime rate. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
When an Argument Structure question falls into a common argument pattern use what you know about that pattern to help you define the statement's role. It can turn a difficult question into something you can tackle pretty quickly!