Television news coverage gives viewers a sense of direct involvement

Question

Television news coverage gives viewers a sense of direct involvement with current events but does not provide the depth of coverage needed for the significance of those events to be appreciated.

Newspapers, on the other hand, provide depth of coverage but no sense of direct involvement.

a full understanding of current events requires both an appreciation of their significance and a sense of direct involvement with them

few people seek out news sources other than newspapers and television

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

(A) treats two things, neither one of which can plausibly be seen as excluding the others, as though they were mutually exclusive

(B) ignores the possibility that people read newspapers or watch television for reasons other than gaining a full understanding of current events

(C) makes crucial use of the term “depth of coverage” without defining it

(D) fails to consider the possible disadvantages of having a sense of direct involvement with tragic or violent events

(E) mistakenly reasons that just because something has the capacity to perform a given function it actually does so

stne · Answer

(A) treats two things, neither one of which can plausibly be seen as excluding the others, as though they were mutually exclusive :  KEEP.

(B) ignores the possibility that people read newspapers or watch television for reasons other than gaining a full understanding of current events :  The argument does acknowledge FEW people seek full understanding, hence other few must be the ones who DO NOT seek full understanding. Hence argument DOES NOT ignore those who DO NOT seek full understanding. INCORRECT.

(C) makes crucial use of the term “depth of coverage” without defining it :  does not look correct, A looks better. INCORRECT

(D)fails to consider the possible disadvantages of having a sense of direct involvement with tragic or violent events :  Argument is centered around full understanding of news and its requirements. This is out of scope.INCORRECT

(E)mistakenly reasons that just because something has the capacity to perform a given function it actually does so :  Out of scope. INCORRECT.

Ans- A

Hope it's clear.

NiftyNiffler · Answer

Television news coverage gives viewers a sense of direct involvement with current events but does not provide the depth of coverage needed for the significance of those events to be appreciated.

Newspapers, on the other hand, provide depth of coverage but no sense of direct involvement.

a full understanding of current events requires both an appreciation of their significance and a sense of direct involvement with them

few people seek out news sources other than newspapers and television

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

(A) treats two things, neither one of which can plausibly be seen as excluding the others, as though they were mutually exclusive  -- CORRECT, it is not impossible to both read newspaper and watch television as the author is making it out to be.

(B) ignores the possibility that people read newspapers or watch television for reasons other than gaining a full understanding of current events  -- The passage doesn't concern itself with anything other than full understanding of current events, so IRRELEVANT
 
(C) makes crucial use of the term “depth of coverage” without defining it  -- Terminologies are not important

(D) fails to consider the possible disadvantages of having a sense of direct involvement with tragic or violent events  -- Totally out-of-scope

(E) mistakenly reasons that just because something has the capacity to perform a given function it actually does so  -- We are not concerned about capacity of newspaper or television

So, it's  A

unraveled · Answer

Television news coverage gives viewers a sense of direct involvement with current events but does not provide the depth of coverage needed for the significance of those events to be appreciated.

Newspapers, on the other hand, provide depth of coverage but no sense of direct involvement.

a full understanding of current events requires both an appreciation of their significance and a sense of direct involvement with them

few people seek out news sources other than newspapers and television

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

(A) treats two things, neither one of which can plausibly be seen as excluding the others,  as though they were mutually exclusive  - CORRECT. If they are exclusive of each other then saying few people ever full understand current events makes little sense.

(B) ignores the possibility that people read newspapers or watch television for  reasons other than gaining a full understanding of current events  - WRONG. Sense of direct involvement takes care of this.

(C) makes crucial use of the term “depth of coverage” without defining it - WRONG. Non issue being made an issue. Irrelevant.

(D) fails to consider the  possible disadvantages of having a sense of direct involvement  with tragic or violent events - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(E) mistakenly reasons that just because something has the capacity to perform a given function it actually does so - WRONG. Too vague for it to be understandable.

Answer A.

Rick_0x · Answer

I narrowed it down to A and B but having hard time understanding why option B won't be the answer.

Abhishek009 · Answer

Screenshot 2024-03-07 200349.png From the stimulus , highlighted part and the discussion it is clear both are 2 separate watertight compartments and having information from both is not possible. Thus Answer must be (B)

MartyMurray · Answer

Here's the conclusion of the argument:

few people ever fully understand current events

The support for the conclusion is the following:

Television news coverage gives viewers a sense of direct involvement with current events but does not provide the depth of coverage needed for the significance of those events to be appreciated.

Newspapers, on the other hand, provide depth of coverage but no sense of direct involvement.

a full understanding of current events requires both an appreciation of their significance and a sense of direct involvement with them

few people seek out news sources other than newspapers and television

We see that the author has gone from the fact that neither of the two news sources people use provide both depth of coverage and sense of involvement to the conclusion that few people understand current events.

Now, let's consider (B).

(B) ignores the possibility that people read newspapers or watch television for reasons other than gaining a full understanding of current events

(B) misses the point of the argument. The point is that "few people ever fully understand current events" because the news sources they use don't provide what's needed.

So, even if it is possible that "people read newspapers or watch television for reasons other than gaining a full understanding of current events," that fact does not affect the argument.

After all, regardless of why people read newspapers or watch television, it could still be the case that they don't fully understand current events, and that's all the author is concluding. The author is not saying anything about whether people achieve their purposes.

Now, let's consider (A).

(A) treats two things, neither one of which can plausibly be seen as excluding the other, as though they were mutually exclusive

In analyzing the argument, we saw that the author reasons that "few people ever fully understand current events" because neither newspapers nor television provides on its own what people need for understanding current events.

The issue with that argument is that the author is ignoring the fact that people can get news from both sources and thus get what they need for fully understanding current events.

Thus, we can see that it is indeed the case that, as this choice says, the author treats two things, getting news from newspapers and getting it from television, as though they were mutually exclusive, in other words, as if people can't do both.

So, (A) correctly describes what's wrong with the argument.

Aim4gmat2024 · Answer

Those who read newspaper in the morning , could easily switch on their TV to see a current update about the news. They arent mutually exclusive . Therefore answer is A

Answer isnt B , as author is addressing the issue of people seeking current affair news

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Television news coverage gives viewers a sense of direct involvement

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

Television news coverage gives viewers a sense of direct involvement

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