cosimogrover
Heart of the passage is clearly that the Daily clarion is the only real voice of gotham city and not daily bugle. But here in option D it is no where mentioned that the ownership is different, it is just that the workers (editorial etc.) are from the city. Why can't it be refuted on that ground?? Whereas option B seems most plausible with Daily clarion clearly more focused on news from out of town and thus not the real voice of people of gotham city
First, I'd like to agree with
NPProb about the quality of this question - it doesn't seem very GMAT-like (at least in what i've seen over the years). But if we want to ignore that fact, only answer choice D speaks to the language in the conclusion that one paper is the "voice" of the people. Whether that voice is speaking about local issues or foreign issues, the question posed in the conclusion is about whether the paper is speaking FOR Gotham residents.
As others have noted, temping trap B also fails under the issues of proportion and that writing about out-of-town new can still be in the voice of the Gotham people. I'd also throw in the issue that we don't really know how much more. If both papers are 150 pages, and Clarion devotes 5 pages while the Bugle devotes 4, is that enough to actually matter? It also says usually, which just means over 50% of the time, so it could be that 51% of the time they write a tiny bit more about out-of-town news, while 49% of the time they write a whole lot less. This choice is too ambiguous for the impact to be clear.
Finally, I wanted to address a question from
nithyak above:
Quote:
Isn't this the premise?: "Did you know that the Daily Bugle is owned by an out-of-town business syndicate that couldn't care about the people of Gotham city?" As per my understanding/learning thus far, the premise is taken as true and irrefutable; and only the conclusion "Read the Daily Clarion, the only real voice of the people of Gotham City!" can be refuted. So answer choice D cannot be correct right? Please let me know if I'm wrong here. I would say that if a premise is presented as a verifiable fact (e.g.
the Clarion is owned by an out-of-town business syndicate), then you will not see answers that either strengthen or weaken that piece of evidence. However, if the premise is an opinion or belief (e.g.
the business syndicate couldn't care less about the people of Gotham city), then that premise is up for attack or support. CR arguments are just as likely to be supported by evidence as they are beliefs, so it's not abnormal to have a strengthen/weaken/assumption question address a claim being used as a premise!
So I think the rule you can take is "never attack a fact" - so if an argument tells you that the paper is owned by out-of-towners, don't expect to see an answer come back with something like "turns out that was a lie and they weren't actually owned by out-of-towners after all."
Hope this helps!

Whit