Commentator: Many social critics claim that contemporary journalists'

Question

Commentator: Many social critics claim that contemporary journalists' cynical tendency to look for selfish motives behind the seemingly altruistic actions of powerful people undermines our society's well-being by convincing people that success is invariably associated with greed and mendacity. But the critics' claim is absurd. The cynicism of contemporary journalists cannot be a contributing factor to the undermining of our society's well-being, for journalists have always been cynics. Today's journalists are, if anything, more restrained than their predecessors.

The reasoning in the commentator's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it overlooks the possibility that

(A) widespread cynicism is beneficial to the well-being of society

(B) cynicism about the motives of powerful people increases with the amount of information one has about them

(C) the work of contemporary journalists reflects a cynicism that is not really genuine

(D) any accurate description of human behavior portrays it as selfish

(E) cynicism of this type on the part of journalists has always had a negative effect on the well-being of society

Siak0730 · Accepted Answer

Commentator: Many social critics claim that contemporary journalists'   cynical tendency to look for selfish motives   behind the seemingly altruistic actions of powerful people undermines our society's well-being by convincing people that success is invariably associated with greed and mendacity.   But the critics' claim is absurd  . The   cynicism of contemporary journalists cannot be a contributing factor to the undermining of our society's well-being, for journalists have always been cynics  .  Today's journalists  are, if anything,  more restrained  than their predecessors.

Critics Claim- J's C to look for selfish motives behind Altruistic actions of powerful people undermined our society's well being.
But Critics Claim is absurd.
Js have always been C. So, C cant be a contributing factor to the undermining of our Society's well being. Todays Js are more restrained.

The reasoning in the commentator's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it overlooks the possibility that
  Question Type: FLAW IN THE REASONING

(A) widespread cynicism is beneficial to the well-being of society -  if cynicism is beneficial, then commentator claim is valid that critics claim is absurd .

(B) cynicism about the motives of powerful people increases with the amount of information one has about them -  Out of Scope.

(C) the work of contemporary journalists reflects a cynicism that is not really genuine -  Out of Scope.

(D) any accurate description of human behavior portrays it as selfish -  Irrelevant

(E) cynicism of this type on the part of journalists has always had a negative effect on the well-being of society -  CORRECT 
if this option is true, then, Js always have been behaving in same way, and thus Critics claim can't be absurd.

**Drop Kudos, If this post helps!!**

lynnglenda · Answer

Powerscore explanation:

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)

The argumentation in this stimulus has a familiar form: It starts with “some people claim...” and
then goes on to refute the claim presented. This example gets a bit complicated because it deals with
the commentator, who is criticizing the social critics, who are themselves criticizing contemporary
journalists. The argument breaks down more simply as follows:

Social critics: Journalists have a cynical tendency to try to find selfishness in the seemingly
selfless actions of powerful people. This hurts society by making the public
think that “success is invariably associated with greed and mendacity” (i.e.
that all successful people are greedy and dishonest).

Commentator: Journalists have always been cynical-maybe even more so in the past, so the
social critics’ claim is absurd.

The commentator’s argument is not a strong one; the claim is that cynical journalists can do no harm
to society (that such a claim is absurd) simply because journalists have always been cynical. The
issue, of course, is that a problem’s long-standing history does not necessarily mean that it’s not
a problem—maybe these cynical journalists (even if they have always existed) have continuously
harmed society with their cynical perspectives.

The stimulus is followed by a Flaw question, so the correct answer choice will likely reference
the issue that a long tradition of cynical journalism does not mean that cynical journalism isn’t
undermining society’s wellbeing.

Answer choice (A): This choice suggests that the author has overlooked the possible benefits of
cynicism. This is certainly not a flaw in the author’s argument, which concludes that journalistic
cynicism is not harmful to society. Considering the possibility that, beyond this, such cynicism is
actually beneficial, is not vital to the argument, so overlooking that possibility would not be a flaw in
this case.

Answer choice (B): The stimulus’ conclusion is simply that cynicism among journalists is not
harmful to society, so the author does not need to consider how the level of cynicism might be
related to the amount of information available.

Answer choice (C): Based on the fact that journalistic cynicism has always existed, the author
concludes that it is not harmful to society. There is no need to consider the possibility that today’s
brand of cynicism is disingenuous, so this is not the flaw in the author’s reasoning.

Answer choice (D): The author, whose conclusion is that journalistic cynicism is unharmful to
society, does not need to consider whether people are accurately portrayed as selfish. Since this
consideration is unnecessary, this choice should be eliminated.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The author’s conclusion is that the
referenced journalistic cynicism does not harm society, based on the premise that such cynicism has
always existed. If such cynicism has indeed always existed and, as this choice provides, has always
had a negative effect on the well-being of society, the author’s argument fails.

peanuts · Answer

Commentator: Many social critics claim that contemporary journalists' cynical tendency to look for selfish motives behind the seemingly altruistic actions of powerful people undermines our society's well-being by convincing people that success is invariably associated with greed and mendacity. But the critics' claim is absurd. The cynicism of contemporary journalists cannot be a contributing factor to the undermining of our society's well-being, for journalists have always been cynics. Today's journalists are, if anything, more restrained than their predecessors.

The reasoning is that cynicism was done in the past. Now cynicism is less than in the past. So journalist's cynicism could not undermine social's well-being

The reasoning in the commentator's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it overlooks the possibility that

(A) widespread cynicism is beneficial to the well-being of society  no. so irrelevant.

(B) cynicism about the motives of powerful people increases with the amount of information one has about them  No info about this

(C) the work of contemporary journalists reflects a cynicism that is not really genuine  Genuineness of the cynicism is not of interest

(D) any accurate description of human behavior portrays it as selfish  Too strong. Also selfish is not of interest

(E) cynicism of this type on the part of journalists has always had a negative effect on the well-being of society  oh yes. Thing done in the past could not confirm that it has no negative effect

Arunava7393 · Answer

This question does not have a simple solution written. So I am copy pasting user ODST117 solution to this.
Social critics say contemporary journalists are cynical and that negatively affects the well being of society. Commentator says that is absurd because journalists have always been cynical and says today’s journalists are more restrained (probably less cynical) than before. Commentator is refuting the claim that journalists being cynical has a negative effect on the well being of society and his justification is that they’ve always been cynical, so if they did harm society’s well being, it would be widespread and noticeable (I know this is a stretch, but it is necessary). But he overlooks the possibility that maybe the cynicism has always had a negative effect on society, no matter how small (Notice they never quantify "negative" here).

I think the commentator is trying to support his point by trying to trick you into questioning the proportionality of the relationship between cynicism and societies well being. But we have no information to question this relationship.

Commentator: Many social critics claim that contemporary journalists'

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

Commentator: Many social critics claim that contemporary journalists'

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