Political opinion and analysis outside the mainstream rarely are found on television talk shows, and it might be thought that this state of affairs is a product of the political agenda of the television stations themselves. In fact, television stations are driven by the same economic forces as sellers of more tangible goods. Because they must attempt to capture the largest possible share of the television audience for their shows, they air only those shows that will appeal to large numbers of people. As a result, political opinions and analyses aired on television talk shows are typically bland and innocuous.

An assumption made in the explanation offered by the author of the passage is that

A. most television viewers cannot agree on which elements of a particular opinion or analysis are most disturbing.
B. there are television viewers who might refuse to watch television talk shows that they knew would be controversial and disturbing.
C. each television viewer holds some opinion that is outside the political mainstream, but those opinions are not the same for everyone.
D. there are television shows on which economic forces have an even greater impact than they do on television talk shows.
E. the television talk shows of different stations resemble one another in most respects.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Another curve ball

I was debating between A and B.

I would choose B.

I was tempted to go with E, but I C is my answer. E is good, the only problem is I am not certain that it is an assumption. The author explicitely states "stations are driven by the same forces in most respects."

C. each television viewer holds some opinion that is outside the political mainstream, but those opinions are not the same for everyone. IMO we have to assume this in order for the Argument to stand. What if those opinions are the same for everyone, then the logis, that polical opinions and analysis do not air b/c of the reason(s) listed, is invalid,

As much as I like E, C would be my answer!
_________________

---------------------------------------------------
The more I learn, the more I realize I know nothing!
----------------------------------------------------

The debate is between B and C...I will go or B....

OA is B.
B) Negating B actually destroys the argument. If there are NO television viewers who might refuse to watch television talk shows that they knew would be controversial and disturbing, then what is the point of airing only those shows that will appeal to large numbers of people to capture the largest possible share of the television audience? TV stations could show just anything on TV and people would NOT refuse to watch it. Their rating would be high no matter what they show and the argument of not airing non-mainstream ideas would be destroyed.
C) Negating C actually supports the argument. Say everyone's idea is the same. Then it strenghtens the argument that ALL people will be offended by such showing and those people will not watch such shows. Since all people will not watch non-mainstream shows, TV stations' ratings will suffer. Thus, negating C will support the argument and C is NOT an assumption.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Nice explanation Paul...as most of the guys even I chose C.

Vivek.
_________________

"Start By Doing What Is Necessary ,Then What Is Possible & Suddenly You Will Realise That You Are Doing The Impossible"