Question #1010

Identifying the Conclusion

Started by brian.eugene.smith@gmail.com · started 2022-08-16 04:19 · last activity 2022-08-17 04:39 · 2 replies

Hello, Starting a new thread so it is easier to follow. Shunehe gave the response below to the question about identifying the conclusion, but it leaves out another possible structure of the argument which I believe can be just as logical as the what he describes as the 'actual structure of the argument.' The alternative structure I mention is below Shunehe's response. "...So here, the actual structure of the argument is going to be as follows: Premise: Media devote more coverage to crime now than they did 10 years ago Premise: Crucial factor in media’s decisions about what issues to cover and to what extent to cover them is the interests of their audiences Conclusion: More coverage to crime isn’t because the crime rate has increased, but rather because the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime Which is why (B) is wrong and (E) is going to be right here. And if you’re having troubles thinking about the causal relationship, try to think about it the other way around, flip one of the premises with the conclusion and see if it still make sense: Premise: Media devote more coverage to crime now than they did 10 years ago Premise: More coverage to crime isn’t because the crime rate has increased, but rather because the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime Conclusion: Crucial factor in media’s decisions about what issues to cover and to what extent to cover them is the interests of their audiences Does this argument make sense? What we’re saying is here is that the media’s decisions about what they cover is based on their audiences. And why? Because the public is more interested and reading and hearing about crime? That doesn’t make sense, the first one just flows much more logically, and so we know that the first construction is the right one, and that the public being more interested in hearing and reading about crime is a conclusion that’s an alternative explanation of why the media devote more coverage to crime now than they did ten years ago" Please explain why the structure of the argument can not be as listed below. Premise: More coverage to crime isn’t because the crime rate has increased, but rather because the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime Premise: Crucial factor in media’s decisions about what issues to cover and to what extent to cover them is the interests of their audiences Conclusion: Media devote more coverage to crime now than they did 10 years ago Thanks again. Brian

Replies

  1. Emil-Kunkin · 2022-08-16 21:29

    Hi Brian, The argument is not structured as you listed because the conclusion is not that the media devotes more time to crime than they did ten years ago. Neither of the two premises you list support that fact- they may explain why the fact happened, but they do not prove the fact that it did happen. The fact that the media spend more time on crime than in the past would need some sort of numbers or statistics to back it up. We could say something like "ten years ago, news programs spent 5% of their time on crime, but now, the average news program spends 15% of their time on crime, therefore the media devote more coverage to crime now than they did 10 years ago." This is an argument that supports the claim that something has changed- but to make a claim like this, you would need actual evidence. The structure you proposed is not evidence, but rather an explanation for why something happened.

  2. brian.eugene.smith@gmail.com · 2022-08-17 04:39

    Hi Emil, Thanks for the response. I understand your explanation but not sure I would be able to get there on my own. The part I am struggling with is this. Your last sentence says the structure I proposed is just an explanation of why something happened. Isn't the conclusion "More coverage to crime isn’t because the crime rate has increased, but rather because the public is now more interested in reading and hearing about crime" just an explanation as well? Also, I know I have heard on the Legal Level podcast and seen in past answer discussions that the author's attempt to explain why something happened/is happening is usually the conclusion. Following from those two points above I don't understand why my conclusion is just an explanation, but the actual conclusion is not when it explains why something is happening also. Can you please clarify?

Sign in to reply.