PrepTest 156

This is very tempting! After all, the author definitely disagrees with the notion that journalists' investigations into politicians' private lives actually improve society. Before we select this and move on, however, we need to take stock of the bold, SCOTUS-y language in this answer choice: "attempts to refute." "Refute" means "disprove completely." We can't select an answer choice with language this strong without confirming that the author, indeed, tries to disprove the journalists' claims completely.

In this case, the author doesn't disprove journalists' claim that their investigation into politicians' private lives is an effort to improve society. The author doesn't think these investigations actually improve society. However, the author doesn't address whether journalists are trying to improve society. The journalists may try to improve society, even if they fail. So, this answer choice ever-so-slightly misconstrues the relationship between the author's conclusion and the journalists' claim, making it incorrect.

Bingo! The statement-in-question is the journalists' "justification" (since they argue that they're trying to improve society) for a "practice" (investigating politicians' private lives). Additionally, the author's argument concludes that this practice has "undesirable consequences" (it is "detrimental to society" because it makes politicians focus on mere appearances and makes everyone else cynical). Unlike (A), this answer choice doesn't misdescribe the relationship between the author's conclusion and the journalists' claim by arguing that the author's conclusion refutes the journalists' claims. Therefore, we can be confident that (B) is the correct answer. We can justifiably select it without reading the remaining choices.

Not quite. The statement-in-question is the journalists' conclusion, not evidence for their conclusion. The journalists' evidence is that their investigations can improve society by forcing politicians to follow the same rules of conduct that everyone else follows. So, this answer choice misidentifies the role of the statement-in-question by calling it "evidence."

Moreover, for the same reasons we discussed in (A), the author does not conclude that the statement-in-question is false. The journalists claim they are trying to improve society by investigating politicians' personal lives. But the author doesn't address whether journalists are trying to improve society. Instead, the author only addresses whether journalists actually improve society. So, this answer choice misdescribes the relationship between the author's conclusion and the journalists' claim.

Nope. The author claims that journalists' investigations into politicians' private lives are more damaging to society than the journalists' believe. The journalists argue that these investigations attempt to improve society, while the author argues that these investigations are "detrimental to society."

Not quite. The statement-in-question isn't an example of a phenomenon. Journalists' investigations into politicians' private lives aren't examples of some broader trend involving interest in people's private lives or anything like that. Moreover, while we know that the author thinks journalists' investigations have "very different effects" from those the journalists assume they have, we don't know what effects "everyone" assumes these investigations have. We don't know whether non-journalists think these investigations improve society.