Quote:
A major network news organization experienced a drop in viewership in the week following the airing of a controversial report on the economy. The network also received a very large number of complaints regarding the report. The network, however, maintains that
negative reactions to the report had nothing to do with its loss of viewers.
The OA tells us that the drop in viewership wasn't isolated to this particular network. It is NOT confirming something that we already knew from the argument. This is NEW INFO.
Quote:
A moderately large city is redesigning its central downtown area and is considering a plan that would reduce the number of lanes for automobiles and trucks and increase those for bicycles and pedestrians. The intent is
to attract more workers and shoppers to downtown businesses by making downtown easier to reach and more pleasant to move around in.
The argument proposes a plan to achieve a particular goal, and the OA tells us that in
other, similar situations, that plan indeed achieved the stated goal. It is NOT confirming something that we already knew from the argument. This is NEW INFO.
In this problem, on the other hand, look at what the argument tells us:
Quote:
a major earthquake
known to have occured near the island in A.D. 365
Note,
jabhatta2, that this is not the Archaeologists' hypothesis. Their hypothesis is that the destruction
was due to a major earthquake.
After reading this:
Quote:
a major earthquake
known to have occured near the island in A.D. 365
Are you thinking: "oh, I wonder what percent of modern histories of Cyprus mention that an earthquake occured near the island in A.D. 365... If I find out that more than 50% mention it, that would increase my confidence in the Archaeologists' hypothesis."
No, why would any of that matter if a major earthquake is
known to have occured near the island in A.D. 365? We should be looking for an answer choice that tells us something we don't already know.