PrepTest 124

Incorrect. The opening statement is the opposing point, and the statement in question is meant to support the author's opinion of that view.

Incorrect. The view that TVs are just toasters with pictures is the opposing point, so while the statement in question is an intermediate conclusion, it's not meant to support that view—it supports the view that that one is too simplistic.

Incorrect. While the statement in question can be correctly referred to as a premise (intermediate conclusions are both premises and conclusions), the second half of this answer reflects the opposing point, not the main point that the statement in question supports.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Opposing point: TVs are like toasters, so the market should determine content.

Rebuttal: TV is unlike toasters in that it's important because:
(1) Politically - How voters get information about current events
(2) Culturally - The avg. home watches 5 hours/day
So - Governmental control is necessary
Therefore - Allowing the market to determine content is too simple

Answer Anticipation:
That is quite an argument! There's a lot going on, so let's walk through it.

The argument starts with an opposing point—what some have "suggested." After walking through this viewpoint, the author pivots ("But") to an opinion of that viewpoint—it's too simple. The author's opinion of an opposing point is almost always the main point of the argument.

After that statement, the argument goes into a follow-up piece of information, explaining what is too simple about the approach—that more regulation is needed. Since this is a reason that the "toaster" approach is too simple, this is a premise, but it's followed in the same sentence by a "since," telling us it's also a conclusion. So this statement is an intermediate conclusion supported by the statement in question.

However, the argument then dives into an explanation of the statement in question! That statement discusses the political and cultural importance of TV, and the rest of the argument explains the importance in each of those contexts. So the statement in question has support, making it itself an intermediate conclusion!

So this argument has an opposing point, and then a couple premises that support an intermediate conclusion, supporting another intermediate conclusion, that eventually supports the main point. Let's find that (convoluted) answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the role of the statement in question as an intermediate conclusion. It also correctly characterizes the rest of the argument. The claim that it says the statement in question supports is that second intermediate conclusion, and the piece it highlights as one of the premises for the statement in question is, in fact, one of the two supporting it.

Key Takeaway:
Argument Structure questions can have very complex argument structures, and the full complexity is sometimes on display in the correct answer, so don't oversimplify if you can avoid it. Additionally, note that the correct answer doesn't have to be a complete expression of the argument structure. Here, the correct answer doesn't highlight the second premise for the statement in question, nor the fact that the conclusion it supports is itself an intermediate conclusion.

Incorrect. Similar to (C), it is correct to characterize the statement in question as a premise since intermediate conclusions are both premises and conclusions, the rest of this answer is off. The statement in question is supported by the claim noted here, it doesn't support it. Explaining how something is politically important supports a claim that it is politically important, not the other way around.