Logical reasoning PrepTest 151 · Section 4 · Question 18

Incorrect. The argument states that the contrast is "best" understood in terms of business strategies, so there could be other factors driving the difference. Additionally, even if you thought that this answer ruled out an alternative explanation for the differences in objectivity (i.e., this answer rules out that the difference is because new media outlets have partisan journalists and traditional outlets don't), this answer goes too far in stating that the two journalists are "just as partisan."

Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't talk about audience preferences, but rather about differentiation, so this answer is out of scope. Additionally, if anything, the argument relies on people preferring partisan reporting since that's the differentiator of choice in a marketplace with competition.

Incorrect. The stimulus draws a distinction between new media outlets that compete with each other and traditional outlets that have had no serious rivals, so it's not required for the argument that the new outlets are stealing readers from the traditional outlets.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Traditional newspapers: Objectivity is essential; no serious rivals.New media: Openly partisan reporting pays the bills; marketplace is crowded.Since traditional outlets had no serious rivals, they viewed objectivity as essential. Since new media has a lot of rivals, they use partisanship as a differentiator. Therefore, business strategies explain the different styles.

Answer Anticipation:
There are essentially three arguments here—two intermediate ones that lead to the overall conclusion.

The first argument is that competition in new media requires differentiation, and so they are openly partisan. That requires the assumption that the partisanship is being driven by competition. Similarly, the second argument is that newspapers didn't have serious rivals, so objectivity was important to them to avoid giving offense. That requires the assumption that objectivity is less likely to offend than partisan reporting.

Finally, the argument reaches its main conclusion by stating that this difference (different business needs) and the implications of it is the best explanation for the objectivity/partisan split. This requires assuming that there isn't a better frame to understand the difference.

Lots of potential answers, so we need to stay flexible!

Answer Explanation:
This answer doesn't focus on the new media at all! Instead, it deals with the intermediate conclusion about the development of objective journalism. The final sentence of the stimulus establishes a conclusion—the most important objective was avoiding offense, since objectivity developed without serious rivals. In order for that subsidiary conclusion to hold, those newspapers must have believed that objectivity was an important part of not offending readers. If objective reporting is no less likely to offend readers, then that last part of the argument makes no sense.

Key Takeaway:
When an intermediate conclusion is present, Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions can have a correct answer that addresses a gap leading to that intermediate conclusion. These can sometimes feel like they're addressing a premise instead of an assumption, so be sure to note any intermediate conclusions so you don't rule these answer choices out!

Incorrect. While the argument pivots from a statement about how objectivity has traditionally been viewed as essential for journalism, that pivot doesn't lead to an argument about how it isn't essential, but rather to discussing a type of media outlet that doesn't view it as essential. Since the argument doesn't pick sides, we can't say that it requires assuming the traditional papers are wrong.