PrepTest 143

Incorrect. The argument doesn't discuss the actual effect of confidence on the economy, just news coverage on the economy's effect on people's confidence.

Incorrect. This answer can be tempting because, in the real world, we treat exceptions, when they exist, as guaranteeing the opposite outcome. For example, if we said, "We go to the park every weekend day except when there's rain," most people would take that to mean that when the exception happens—there's rain on the weekend—then we don't go to the park. However, that's not the technical sense of the word—when the exception happens, the noted outcome might not happen. Here, if people don't have direct experience, they might defer to journalists, so we can't support this answer stating that they likely will be influenced by news coverage.

Incorrect. The stimulus suggests quite the opposite—people won't defer to journalists when they have direct experience with the covered subject, and they have direct experience with the economy, so they won't defer to journalists.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Background Ð Everyone has direct experience with the economy
Critics Ð Pessimistic coverage of the economy will undermine consumer confidence, hurting the economy
Journalists Ð To do their jobs, they can't worry about the consequences of their reporting
Studies Ð People don't defer to journalists on any topic they have direct experience with

Answer Anticipation:
There are a lot of viewpoints and additional information being thrown around in this stimulus, so it's important to keep them straight. The Critics and Journalists both have their own viewpoints, but there's also additional information that the stimulus presents as established fact.

That last statement about what studies show is one of them. However, so is the parenthetical in the middle of the Critics's statement, and it's important to note it as such! That people have direct experience with the economy isn't the opinion of the Critics—the stimulus establishes it as true.

That statement overlaps with the results of the study, and when statements overlap in Must Be True questions, we should always check to see if there's an inference we can draw by combining them. Here, there is—if "everyone" has direct experience with the economy, then that study shows that everyone won't defer to journalists. And since they won't defer to journalists, any coverage on the economy they provide won't change people's minds on it—so the Critics's fears appear unfounded.

This anticipation doesn't bring in the Journalist's view, and we can try to find an inference there, but it doesn't seem to really overlap. We shouldn't force it—Must Be True questions don't need to use all statements in reaching the correct answer! Let's head in with the anticipation we have and see if it gets us to the correct answer.

Answer Explanation:
People have direct experience with the economy, so studies suggest that they won't defer to journalists on the topic and, therefore, it's unlikely that news coverage on the economy will affect people's opinions on the subject.

Key Takeaway:
When a Must Be True question has a mixture of viewpoints and facts, make sure to distinguish between each viewpoint, and between the viewpoints and the facts. In general, the facts are more likely to lead to correct answers than the viewpoints!

Incorrect. Well-being is out of scope of the argument. While one could argue that people have direct experience of their own well-being—and that's true—journalists covering other topics that people aren't directly familiar with may affect people in a way that impacts their well-being.