Analyst: In our nation's television news programs, the number of

Official Explanation

Reading the question: we can be pleased to see that we have what is essentially a causal argument: news coverage of Africa is down because armed conflicts have declined. Since we have a causal argument, we know that we can create a filter using the concept of "another cause."

Creating a filter: we can imagine another cause to explain the lower number of articles. For example, maybe something closer to our nation's hearts has been going on since then and it has seized the stage and that's the real reason coverage of Africa is down. We paraphrase what we're looking for as "alternate cause of decreased coverage."

Applying the filter: Choices (A) through (C) strengthen the argument, as much as anything. (D) allows the causal relationship suggested to stand; it doesn't even bar the possibility that the news stations are out of articles. Choice (E) gives us what we're looking for: an alternative explanation.

Logical proof: we can use the negation test on choice (E). Negating (E), we can suppose, what if news shows had not changed any policies about showing these stories? In that case, policies at the news stations would not be an explanation for the decreased coverage. And then it would appear more likely that the cause attributed by the argument was correct. The negated (E) is a strengthener of the argument, so non-negated (E) is a weakener of the argument.

The correct answer is (E).