rohan2345 wrote:
The news media is often accused of being willing to do anything for ratings. However, recent action by a television network indicates that the news media is sometimes guided by moral principle. This network had discovered through polling voters on the east coast that the Republican candidate for President had garnered enough votes to ensure victory before the polls closed on the west coast. However, the network withheld this information until the polls on the west coast closed so that the information would not affect the outcome of key congressional races.
Which one of the following most strengthens the argument?
(A) The network had endorsed the Republican candidate for President.
(B) The network expected its ratings to increase if it predicted the winner of the presidential race, and to decrease if did not predict the winner.
(C) A rival network did predict a winner of the presidential race before the polls on the west coast closed.
(D) The network believed that it would receive higher ratings by not predicting the winner of the presidential race.
(E) The network feared that predicting the winner of the presidential race could so anger Congress that it might enact legislation preventing all future polling outside of voting centers.
Our job is to strengthen the argument. What is the conclusion? It is: The news media [are] sometimes guided by moral principle.
Why? Because a specific network had discovered that the Republican candidate had garnered enough votes to ensure victory before the polls closed. Nevertheless, the network withheld this information until the polls on the west coast closed so that the information would not affect the outcome of key congressional races.
What's the assumption? The assumption is that this decision was made on moral principle rather than on self-interest or other factors. If, for example, we could show that making the announcement would have resulted in a loss of sponsors or ratings then we could argue that the real reason was self-interest.
So our job is to show that other possible reasons (money, prestige, ratings, etc.) were not a factor.
Answer choice (A) is irrelevant information. The argument is about key congressional races not about the president.
Answer choice (B) is the credited response. Since the network could have benefited by announcing the winner but it did not do so, the decision must have been guided by principle.
Answer choice (C) is irrelevant. We are not interested in other networks.
Answer choice (D) is the opposite answer. If the network believed that it would receive higher ratings by not predicting the winner of the presidential race, then the decision may well have been guided more by rational self-interest than by principle.
Answer choice (E) is also the opposite answer. If the network feared that predicting the winner of the presidential race might anger Congress enough to cause legislation preventing all future polling outside of voting centers, then the decision may well have been guided more by rational self-interest than by principle.