Political advocacy groups have begun to use information services to di

Premise:-

Political advocacy group ( group of people who speaks good about politics and politicians) have started some kind of information system (website etc) which can be only accessible through computers unlike the old medium of information medium such as newspaper or TV, political magazines etc.The group will be able to disseminate the information/views directly to the general public and the author believes that the public will be able to get a balanced / unbiased information of the complex political issues via this website.

At an initial level one can think of an assumption - whether everyone is accessible to use this info, i.e computer is available to everyone to access these info?But that is not mentioned in the premise and not the prime concern , because the author thinks that computer is accessible to almost a major part of the population.
which is mentioned in (A) which is incorrect

Now, traditional medium of information are usually unbiased because those are NOT Created or disseminated by the people involved in POLITICAL ADVOCACY and give info in a balanced way.
What does it means?
It means that, when people involved in political advocacy create information , there will be a chance that they might bias the info in favor of them.
(C) says that :-
C. Information on political issues disseminated through information services does not come almost entirely from advocacy groups that share a single bias.
so one can think of a balanced information which is unbiased.

Clear C to me.

Apply the negation test and the conclusion falls apart

Conclusion is IS provides balanced view when compared with the TNS

Take C and negate. Info from IS comes from groups that share bias. Conclusion falls apart.

clearly C.................

the last sentence of the argument itself states that "information services present a more balanced picture of the complexities of political issues than any traditional news source presents"....

now if we have a look at option C then it holds that since the information on poilitcal issues does not come entirely from advocay group that share a single bias so therfore the information services presents a more realistic and balanced picture of the complexities of political issues .

Hi

Good Q...
According to me (C) is correct because if information on political issues disseminated through information services WERE almost entirely from advocacy groups that share a single bias, then you COULD NOT claim that information services present a more balanced picture of political issues than traditional news sources

Political advocacy groups have begun to use information services to disseminate information that is then accessed by the public via personal computer. Since many groups are thus able to bypass traditional news sources, whose reporting is selective, and to present their political views directly to the public, information services present a more balanced picture of the complexities of political issues than any traditional news source presents.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?

Firstly we need to understand the argument.
Evidence:- It says that the political advocacy groups have started using info services to spread info because traditional sources reporting is selective,
Conclusion:- Information system presents a balanced picture of political issues.

The green part justifies the use of info services by the political advocacy groups.
The point of this argument is that there should not be info from one source. There we get our assumption for using info services.

A. Information services are accessible to enough people to ensure that political advocacy groups can use these services to reach as large a percentage of the public as they could through traditional news sources. irrelevant cause percentage
B. People could get a thorough understanding of a particular political issue by sorting through information provided by several traditional news sources, each with differing editorial biases.understanding of political issue? irrelevant
C. Information on political issues disseminated through information services does not come almost entirely from advocacy groups that share a single bias. Correct
D. Traditional news sources seldom report the views of political advocacy groups accurately.the groups were not having a prob wid the accuracy of traditional sources but that they were selective
E. Most people who get information on political issues from newspapers and other traditional news sources can readily identify the editorial biases of those sources.irrelevant

Political advocacy groups have begun to use information services to disseminate information that is then accessed by the public via personal computer. Since many groups are thus able to bypass traditional news sources, whose reporting is selective, and to present their political views directly to the public, information services present a more balanced picture of the complexities of political issues than any traditional news source presents.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?
The argument is that information services can provide the public with a more balanced view of political issues, unlike traditional sources that present biased political views.
A. Information services are accessible to enough people to ensure that political advocacy groups can use these services to reach as large a percentage of the public as they could through traditional news sources. Accessibility is out of scope.
B. People could get a thorough understanding of a particular political issue by sorting through information provided by several traditional news sources, each with differing editorial biases.This would actually take away from the need for information services.
C. Information on political issues disseminated through information services does not come almost entirely from advocacy groups that share a single bias.If information services provides a perspective that is just as biased as that of traditional sources, the argument falls apart.
D. Traditional news sources seldom report the views of political advocacy groups accurately. Accuracy isn't in question.
E. Most people who get information on political issues from newspapers and other traditional news sources can readily identify the editorial biases of those sources. If they can readily identify biases there's no need for information services.

Here are my two cents
Tough one.
Premise 1: information service help people bypass the newspaper to present the information in public.
Premise 2: newspaper is selective
Conclusion: information service provide a more balanced view

Assumption Question Type, so negation method can be helpful
At first glance, i am confused between C and D:
Let us negate D and we get a sentence: Traditional news sources report the views of political advocacy groups accurately
Does this necessarily weaken the argument? Maybe a little.
Let us negate C: Information on political issues disseminated through information services come almost entirely from advocacy groups that share a single bias.
It exactly weakens the argument.

Hope it works for you.

The conclusion here is "information services present a more balanced picture of the complexities of political issues than any traditional news source presents"

What is the assumption here. That the political groups using information services will report their actual views and since all political groups will present their own views, the picture available to public is balanced.

A. Information services are accessible to enough people to ensure that political advocacy groups can use these services to reach as large a percentage of the public as they could through traditional news sources. - Irrelevant. The conclusion is never about the number of people it can reach, but it is about the balance of the political view itself. Hence wrong.

B. People could get a thorough understanding of a particular political issue by sorting through information provided by several traditional news sources, each with differing editorial biases. - If people can do this themselves, info services dont help.

C. Information on political issues disseminated through information services does not come almost entirely from advocacy groups that share a single bias. - The argument assumes something like this. that the filtered results will present a balanced picture and not a biased picture.

D. Traditional news sources seldom report the views of political advocacy groups accurately. - Not an assumption according to me. This is what line "whose reporting is selective" says.

E. Most people who get information on political issues from newspapers and other traditional news sources can readily identify the editorial biases of those sources. - If people can identify, there is no need for Info services.

Choice C Negated :-

Information on political issues disseminated through information services does come
almost entirely from advocacy groups that share a single bias.
{Now, if the information on political issues is coming from advocacy group sharing a single bias
then the conclusion which states that information services presents a more balanced picture is
invalidated}.
So, C is correct answer choice here.

Argument is highlighted above. After reading the argument the first thing which comes in our mind is that the IS (Information Service) is "Balanced" and not a "Biased" in presenting political views. Let's go through the options.

(A) Information services are accessible to enough people to ensure that political advocacy groups can use these services to reach as large a percentage of the public as they could through traditional news sources. - Incorrect. Accessibility is not a question here, argument is about "Balanced" political views.

(B) People could get a thorough understanding of a particular political issue by sorting through information provided by several traditional news sources, each with differing editorial biases. - Incorrect. It helps the traditional news not the IS, argument is about "Balanced" political views not how people understand news by sorting the traditional news.

(C) Information on political issues disseminated through information services does not come almost entirely from advocacy groups that share a single bias. - Correct. It clearly says that the IS doesn't come from single bias group, its more balanced. If we negate this option, "the IS is coming from biased group" then the argument falls apart i.e, the IS is no balanced.

(D) Traditional news sources seldom report the views of political advocacy groups accurately. - Incorrect. Again, the question is about Balanced political group not about traditional news accuracy.

(E) Most people who get information on political issues from newspapers and other traditional news sources can readily identify the editorial biases of those sources. - Incorrect. Though this option mentions bias but it doesn't focus on IS it rather tells us about traditional news.


Answer: (C)

Option C perfectly makes sense. But what if people don't have computers. Isn't this an assumption that the author makes? Can someone explain option A on this basis.

The sooner you realise that the topic is actually information services, not political groups, the easier your life will become in answering this question.

Evidence:
Info Service ----> Personal Comp ----> Public
Info Service bypasses Traditional
Traditional is selective.

Conclusion:
Info Service is more balanced.

WHY IS THIS ARGUMENT BAD? The author is essentially saying IS (info service) is more balanced than TN (traditional news) because IS bypasses it. Isn't it possible for IS to bypass TN and ALSO be biased? The author is assuming that both these things cannot be true.

Assumption: You can't bypass TN and also be biased.

Even if the answer choices don't give us this verbatim, I expect the scope of the correct answer to focus on the ideas of "bypassing" and "balanced."

(C) is the only choice that even comes close to our prediction. (C) says "IS is NOT biased." Since "IS" is what we mean when we say "bypass TN," it must be correct.
_________________

Option a and c there might be a slight confusion.

a talks about the channel and its accessibility and its degree of effectiveness whereas c addresses the source of its incubation which is directly mentioned in the argument.

Hello Everyone, I have a query.

It is taking me too long to do these kind of problems with accuracy. I took 3.07 minutes to solve this. Is it too bad? I am generally stuck between 2 options, and I negate those two options only. But, I spent most time in understanding the stimulus, clearly which takes me almost 1.50 minutes with language like this question's. Any suggestions?

Regards,
Saakhi

Information services present a more balanced picture than any traditional news sources because
1. Many political advocacy groups can bypass traditional news sources (whose reporting is selective and presents their political views directly to the public) to disseminate information.

What can be a potential weakness of this argument? How about if the Political advocacy groups start giving one-sided views as well? Or if information services present Political advocacy groups that advocate their story only. So, we have to shield the argument against these weaknesses.

Option Elimination -

(A) Information services are accessible to enough people to ensure that political advocacy groups can use these services to reach as large a percentage of the public as they can through traditional news sources. It doesn't matter if they reach out to as many or less or more people. Our argument is that Information services present a more balanced picture. Is this in any way related to our argument? No. Out of scope.

(B) People could get a thorough understanding of a particular political issue by sorting through information provided by several traditional news sources, each with differing editorial biases. - This is talking about traditional sources while we need the information to bridge the gap between conclusions and premises for information services and not traditional news. Out of scope.

(C) Information on political issues disseminated through information services does not come almost entirely from advocacy groups that share a single bias. Exactly. If we negate this, it shatters the conclusion.

(D) Traditional news sources seldom report the views of political advocacy groups accurately. - The passage says that the traditional groups' reporting is selective and not that they report the political advocacy groups accurately. Its distortion.

(E) Most people who get information on political issues from newspapers and other traditional news sources can readily identify the editorial biases of those sources. It does matter, as it doesn't touch the scope of our argument. Whether they can or can't doesn't help our scope, which is finding an assumption that bridges the gap between the conclusion i.e. information services present a more balanced picture, and the supporting premise i.e. many political advocacy groups can bypass traditional news sources out of scope.