Media coverage

The conclusion of the argument is: "Yet this (i.e. that the media now devotes more coverage to crime than they did ten years ago) is not because the crime rate has increased, but rather because the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime." Why? Because the "crucial factor in the media's decisions about what issues to cover and to what extent to cover them is the interests of their audiences." We are asked to identify the role that the proposition that the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime plays in the argument. This claim is given as an explanation as to why the fact that the media now covers crime more than they did ten years ago does not indicate that the crime rate has increased. It is an alternate explanation to the observed effect of the increased media coverage devoted to crime. The issue with answer choice (A) is that it is not describing the conclusion correctly. The conclusion is not that the media now devotes "more coverage to crime than the crime rate alone justifies." Rather, it is that the fact that the media devotes more coverage to crime than it did ten years ago is not because the crime rate has increased, but because people are more interested in reading and hearing about crime. Answer choice (E) is correct because the proposition is an alternate explanation to why the media devotes more coverage to crime now than they did ten years ago, opposing the theory that this increased coverage is because the crime rate has increased. Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

I'm still a little confused as to what it's an "alternative explanation to." Is it just an alternative explanation to the fact that it's not just because crime rates have increased?

You can read the thread above for further explanation. Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

I'm checking on this