A television news network has recently been criticized for failing to

Question

A television news network has recently been criticized for failing to give as much time to individuals who do not believe climate change is occurring as they do to scientists who believe climate change is occurring, even though the network does give equal time to all sides of the debates over immigration, tax reform, and gun policy. The network claims that they only give equal time to both sides of a debate when one side cannot be definitively proven by existing scientific research.

Which of the following can be correctly inferred from the information given above?

A. The television news network believes that it is important to avoid debate on scientific discoveries.
B. There are no effective counter arguments against climate change that might sway viewers to believe that climate change is not occurring.
C. The television news network believes that the existence of climate change has been definitely proven by existing scientific research.
D. No individuals who spoke on the network and who did not believe climate change was occurring were scientists.
E. If the news network gave the same time it gave to scientists to individuals who don’t believe in climate change, it would increase its ratings.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

Whenever you are asked to make an inference from an argument presented on the GMAT, remember that inferences don't need to be interesting or surprising - they only need to be guaranteed.

The argument here states that a television network has been criticized for not giving as much time to climate change deniers as it does to those who believe in climate change even though they do give equal time to all sides of the debates surrounding other issues like tax reform and immigration. The network claims that this is because they only give equal time if one side of the debate cannot be definitively proven by science.

Since the network does not give equal time to both sides of the climate change debate, that means that people at the network believe that it fits the exception given and that one side (the side that believes in climate change) has been definitively proven by science, which matches  answer choice (C).

Among the other answers, (A) can be discarded because while the network does not give equal time for all sides of the debate in some cases, it does not provide a blanket dismissal of debating all scientific discovery. Choice (B) can be eliminated since while the network believes the science has been settled, this is not the same thing as claiming that no one will be swayed by the arguments against climate change. Choice (D) is a bit harder to eliminate since the stimulus tells you that the people who believe that climate change is occurring are scientists, but it doesn't specifically say that the individuals who don't believe in climate change aren't scientists, so (D) can be eliminated. Choice (E) can also be eliminated since even though some people criticize the network for its current policy, it is unknown how a change in policy would affect overall criticism of the network (and in turn how that would effect ratings).

Vivek1707 · Answer

A. The network isn't avoiding scientific debates. It simply says equal time is reserved for issues that cannot be settled by scientific research.
B. The passage says nothing about the strength or weakness of the counterarguments. It only describes the network's policy.
C. The network gives equal time only when science cannot definitively resolve an issue. Since it does not give equal time to climate change skeptics, it can be inferred that the network believes climate change has been definitively established by existing scientific research. This should be it.
D. The passage never identifies who the climate change skeptics are. They could be scientists or non-scientists.
E. Nothing in the passage discusses ratings or how viewers would respond to additional airtime.

C  for me

manupoonia · Answer

Pretty straightforward question. It's a classic example of A has caused B and B has caused C, and then we have to infer that A has caused C

CosmicFilm · Answer

actually i am still not satisfied with , why d cant be the answer?

guddo · Answer

A television news network has recently been criticized for failing to give as much time to individuals who do not believe climate change is occurring as they do to scientists who believe climate change is occurring, even though the network does give equal time to all sides of the debates over immigration, tax reform, and gun policy. The network claims that they only give equal time to both sides of a debate when one side cannot be definitively proven by existing scientific research. 
 
Which of the following can be correctly inferred from the information given above?

The network says it gives equal time only when scientific research cannot definitively prove one side. Since the network does not give equal time to climate-change opponents,  the supported inference  is that the network believes existing scientific research has definitively proven one side of the  climate-change issue .

(A) The television news network believes that it is important to avoid debate on scientific discoveries.

This is too broad. The network’s rule is about when to give equal time, not about avoiding debate on scientific discoveries generally.

(B) There are no effective counter arguments against climate change that might sway viewers to believe that climate change is not occurring.

This is too strong. The passage tells us what the network believes about scientific proof, not whether counterarguments could persuade viewers.

(C) The television news network believes that the existence of climate change has been definitely proven by existing scientific research.

This is correct. The network does not give equal time to those who deny climate change, and its stated policy is to give equal time only when one side cannot be definitively proven by existing scientific research. So the network must believe climate change has been scientifically proven.

(D) No individuals who spoke on the network and who did not believe climate change was occurring were scientists.

This is not supported. The passage does not tell us whether any climate-change skeptics on the network were scientists.

(E) If the news network gave the same time it gave to scientists to individuals who don’t believe in climate change, it would increase its ratings.

This is not supported. The passage says nothing about ratings.

Answer: (C)

egmat · Answer

Hi CosmicFilm,

I get why D feels tempting. The stimulus keeps calling the believers  "scientists"  and calls the other group just  "individuals who do not believe climate change is occurring."  That word contrast makes it  sound  like the deniers can't be scientists. But that's a description in the criticism, not a stated fact.

The test for an inference:  it must be  guaranteed  by the text. So ask - does the passage anywhere state that none of the deniers were scientists? It doesn't. It only tells us that the believers who got airtime were scientists. It stays completely silent on whether any  deniers  happen to be scientists too.

Because the passage never rules that out, D could easily be false - some climate-change deniers on the network might well be scientists. An inference that  could  be false is not a valid inference. That's the whole reason D dies.

Contrast that with  C : the network's own rule says it withholds equal time only when one side is definitively proven by science. It  did  withhold equal time here, so by its own rule it must believe the science is settled. That one is forced - it can't be false. That's what a real inference looks like.

A quick parallel to lock it in:

"A magazine gives more space to doctors who back the new vaccine than to people who oppose it."

Can you safely infer that none of the opponents are doctors? No - the sentence just describes one group as doctors and never says a word about the other group's credentials. Same trap, same fix: silence is not a guarantee.

So D asks you to fill in a blank the passage left empty, and CR never lets you do that.

Answer: C

A television news network has recently been criticized for failing to

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A television news network has recently been criticized for failing to

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards