The news media is often accused of being willing to do

Convoluted Conclusion. But, once you find the conclusion then it is easy to find the answer.


Conclusion: news media is sometimes guided by moral principle
Option B strengthens the conclusion.

Okies...Well...I'll try to explain in Detail -

Fact - A network did not reveal results.
Conclusion: News media is sometimes guided by moral principle.

(A) The network had endorsed the Republican candidate for President. Ohh...so they did endorse him ! But this is not close to our question - whether ratings or morals were involved.

(B) The network expected its ratings to increase if it predicted the winner of the presidential race, and to decrease if did not predict the winner. - Common !! The ratings would have increased if they predicted the winner. What kept them back - might be Morals Hold it for now.

(C) A rival network did predict a winner of the presidential race before the polls on the west coast closed. - So what?? This fact doesn't lead us anywhere/ OOS.

(D) The network believed that it would receive higher ratings by not predicting the winner of the presidential race. - This is the weakener instead. If they knew that holding the results will in turn get them better ratings, definitely morals are not in picture.

(E) The network feared that predicting the winner of the presidential race could so anger Congress that it might enact legislation preventing all future polling outside of voting centers. - So it was the fear and not Morals. Weakener instead.

So, B looks like the best choice here. Hope this helps !!

But here's my question. If east coast poll said Republican leader had enough to win but network waited for west coast before saying anything, doesn't option A suggest they put accuracy of polls over own personal agenda?

Whereas in B if the network was worried about predicting the winner they would wait for both west and east coast polls to get it right?

But then there is a downside too that if it didn't predict the winner correctly it will lose the ranking.
So its not guided by moral principal but simple mathematics.

I think it should be A. The network had endorsed the Republican candidate for President but it still didn't use it media to further its cause. so that's morality.


Marcab daagh Pl help

Hey! IMO B

Let me try to explain

Conclusion: The news was guided by morals.

Now..lets pay attention to whats written in the passage
It clearly says that --> News networks are accused of driving their decisions by the ratings they receive. But one of those news networks(we'll call it N) drove its decisions by morals instead.

Paying attention to B
It says: The network expected its ratings to increase if it predicted the winner of the presidential race, and to decrease if did not predict the winner.

That means there are only two outcomes


1. It predicts the correct winner and wins ratings.
2. It predicts the wrong winner and wins ratings.

The common point between the two being that the news channel HAS TO PREDICT A WINNER.
But we know from the passage that,N got to know about the winner from its sources before the results were out. Even then, N kept the information secret, thereby possibly risking its ratings.

Our job is to strengthen the argument. What is the conclusion? It is: The news media [are] sometimes guided by moral principle.

Why? Because a specific network had discovered that the Republican candidate had garnered enough votes to ensure victory before the polls closed. Nevertheless, the network withheld this information until the polls on the west coast closed so that the information would not affect the outcome of key congressional races.

What's the assumption? The assumption is that this decision was made on moral principle rather than on self-interest or other factors. If, for example, we could show that making the announcement would have resulted in a loss of sponsors or ratings then we could argue that the real reason was self-interest.

So our job is to show that other possible reasons (money, prestige, ratings, etc.) were not a factor.

Answer choice (A) is irrelevant information. The argument is about key congressional races not about the president.
Answer choice (B) is the credited response. Since the network could have benefited by announcing the winner but it did not do so, the decision must have been guided by principle.
Answer choice (C) is irrelevant. We are not interested in other networks.
Answer choice (D) is the opposite answer. If the network believed that it would receive higher ratings by not predicting the winner of the presidential race, then the decision may well have been guided more by rational self-interest than by principle.
Answer choice (E) is also the opposite answer. If the network feared that predicting the winner of the presidential race might anger Congress enough to cause legislation preventing all future polling outside of voting centers, then the decision may well have been guided more by rational self-interest than by principle.

The argument is the counterpremise, which says "media will do anything for ratings" isn't necessarily true and it is sometimes driven by moral principles. To buttress the claim, the author presents an eg of how the media withdrew its information of knowing the winner so as to not affect outcome of polls.

We have to strengthen the argument that there was a moral angle to it.

(A) The network had endorsed the Republican candidate for President. -- Not relevant. Doesn't tell us if the media was guided by a moral principle if at all?

(B) The network expected its ratings to increase if it predicted the winner of the presidential race, and to decrease if did not predict the winner. -- This choice gives us reasons to believe that had media exploited that knowledge, it would have gained ratings. (and yet it did not do so). Therefore, the media isn't willing to *do anything* for ratings and perhaps is sometimes guided by moral principals. Correct choice.

(C) A rival network did predict a winner of the presidential race before the polls on the west coast closed. -- Not relevant to the argument. If at all, potentially a weakener if that rival network also knew of the information.

(D) The network believed that it would receive higher ratings by not predicting the winner of the presidential race. -- In this case the actions would be guided by do *anything for ratings* and hence would weaken our argument. Incorrect.

(E) The network feared that predicting the winner of the presidential race could so anger Congress that it might enact legislation preventing all future polling outside of voting centers. -- Not relevant to our argument. Eliminate.

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.