Most people feel that they are being confused by the information from

Question

Most people feel that they are being confused by the information from broadcast news. This could be the effect of the information’s being delivered too quickly or of its being poorly organized. Analysis of the information content of a typical broadcast news story shows that news stories are far lower in information density than the maximum information density with which most people can cope at any one time. So the information in typical broadcast news stories is poorly organized.

Which one of the following is an assumption that the argument requires in order for its conclusion to be properly drawn?

(A) It is not the number of broadcast news stories to which a person is exposed that is the source of the feeling of confusion.

(B) Poor organization of information in a news story makes it impossible to understand the information.

(C) Being exposed to more broadcast news stories within a given day would help a person to better understand the news.

(D) Most people can cope with a very high information density.

(E) Some people are being overwhelmed by too much information.

winterschool · Answer

Which one of the following is an assumption that the argument requires in order for its conclusion to be properly drawn?

(A) It is not the number of broadcast news stories to which a person is exposed that is the source of the feeling of confusion.

number of broadcast news stories is irrelevant

(B) Poor organization of information in a news story makes it impossible to understand the information.

so, Poor organization of information makes the people confused about information.  correct choice

(C) Being exposed to more broadcast news stories within a given day would help a person to better understand the news.

irrelevant

(D) Most people can cope with a very high information density..

irrelevant and extra info

(E) Some people are being overwhelmed by too much information.

irrelevant

nedunurianurag · Answer

B is alreadymentioned in the argument as a premise. The answer is A. This indicates that the author has assumed that other reasons apart from the one mentioned in the premise are not at play

Neha2404 · Answer

IMO-A

Premises:-
Most people feel are confused by the information from broadcast news because of 2 reason
1.the effect of the information’s being delivered too quickly
2. its being poorly organized.

Analysis of the information content of a typical broadcast news story shows that news stories are far lower in information density than the maximum information density with which most people can cope at any one time.

Conclusion :-So the information in typical broadcast news stories is poorly organized.

(A) It is not the number of broadcast news stories to which a person is exposed that is the source of the feeling of confusion:- Correct. it is elimination the possibility of confusion due to the effect of the information’s being delivered too quickly.
If we negate option A conclusion will be fall.

Option B is strengthening the argument. It can't be the assumption of the argument because it is clearly stated in the premises.

wickedvikram · Answer

Hi  Bunuel

I also think that B is correct answer and A is out of scope. Could you please check the question and make changes in OA, if needed?

nightblade354 · Answer

I can confirm (not that Bunuel needs to be validated) that the OA is indeed (A). If you need further help, please ask.

wickedvikram · Answer

Hi nightblade354 Thanks for your response.

Below is my analysis, could you please point out the mistake/missing point that can help me reach correct answer. Premise: News info confusion probably due to news being " Too Quick or Poorly Organized " Arg: News low in density than max comprehension Conc: Confusion is due to news being "Poorly Organized" (A or B, if not A then B) Assumption: (A) It is not the number of broadcast news stories to which a person is exposed that is the source of the feeling of confusion. High number doesn't affect density. Even if number is high, density could still be lower than max comprehension. Similarly, High number may or may not affect organization. Also, please note that when we are referring to "too much info" , we are going out of scope. The danger of doing this is there can be 10 more reasons besides the 3 discussed. Cancelling 1 out of scope reason would mean you are opening up the door for the possibility of other 10 reasons, which are not being addressed. (B) Poor organization of information in a news story makes it impossible to understand the information. Poor organization doesn't necessarily means that news can't be comprehended (refer to 2nd line, "This could be the effect"). However, this assumption clearly provides necessary relation. Since, the argument has already ruled out "Too Quick" and this assumption provides the impact of Poor Organization, we can clearly establish author's conclusion.

nightblade354 · Answer

wickedvikram ,

You go wrong in a few places. First, your statement about it 'probably' being A or B as the problem. The statement doesn't say it is "probably" this -- the statement says that it is either A or B as the problem. Knowing this, and knowing that we can think outside of these two excuses, we can see a massive assumption being made by both the author and you.

You go wrong with your negations analysis as well. Remember: A negation destroys an argument -- it doesn't support it! This is where you go wrong with answer choice B in my opinion. 
 
Most people feel that they are being confused by the information from broadcast news. This could be the effect of the information’s being delivered too quickly or of its being poorly organized. Analysis of the information content of a typical broadcast news story shows that news stories are far lower in information density than the maximum information density with which most people can cope at any one time. So the information in typical broadcast news stories is poorly organized.

Which one of the following is an assumption that the argument requires in order for its conclusion to be properly drawn?

(A) It is not the number of broadcast news stories to which a person is exposed that is the source of the feeling of confusion. 
Negation:  It is  not  the number of broadcast news stories to which a person is exposed that is the source of the feeling of confusion.   --  so, we are given a completely different reason why there could be problems. Instead of saying it is A or B, this argument says "hey look, it is option C". This destroys our premise-conclusion relationship of it's A or B, not B, therefore A. Our question Universe assumed there were only two options. This answer choice calls that out in its entirety.

(B) Poor organization of information in a news story makes it impossible to understand the information.
Negation:  Poor organization of information in a news story  does not  make it impossible to understand the information.  --  So this is saying that poor organization makes it possible to understand the news. But who cares? Maybe everyone is still not understanding the news even if it is understandable (to justify this answer, we have to assume people can understand it). Quantum physics is understandable, but few aren't confused by it. Same principle. And thus this doesn't destroy our argument. 
 
Does this help clarify your confusion? I think a key takeaway here for you is: Don't make assumptions, which you did, to justify an answer choice; make assumptions and what-ifs to destroy answer choices. You can't add/assume information to make an answer work, but you can add information and other scenarios to 'pop a balloon' if you will for an answer choice. You also need to pay attention to how premises build to conclusions -- leverage that network and map it out so you don't confuse yourself when you're trying to solve difficult problems.

wickedvikram · Answer

Hi  nightblade354

I would need little more clarification. But firstly, thanks a lot for this. This is a very important bias trap, I need to be careful about.

Regarding your first point.

If you will notice "This could be the effect of" (refer to 2nd line of the argument) clearly conveys that the 2 mentioned reasons aren't the only ones, that is the reason I said  probably . This is further solidified by your own reasoning below:

If you will look at the assumption negation, both statements qualify this test.
 Meaning: "number of broadcast news stories" is the reason. Hence,  conclusion is incorrect .

Meaning: "Poor organization" is not the reason. Hence,  conclusion is incorrect .

My main issue with option A is that its logic is same as," I couldn't win, not because of C. Therefore, it is because of A"
Unless, the list is exhaustively negated i.e. all reasons from B to Z are negated. Concluding A can't be correct. 
I hope, I am able to explain my main confusion. Really appreciate your help on this.

nightblade354 · Answer

wickedvikram , Answer choice (B) does not destroy the argument -- you're making an assumption to justify it destroying the argument. I think you're misunderstanding the argument, which is saying "it is either A or B" -- you're thinking there could be more options because of the "either", but that is a flawed way to interpret the argument stem. The either is saying "it is A or B", not "it is probably A or B". Think about the question in a vacuum. Only the information presented exists. You're using logic to say "there is more than just option A or B for a solution", which is the right way to think about a problem. You identified an assumption the author made, but that doesn't mean you can then apply it to the answer choices -- you have to leverage that knowledge to find how you can make it work to find your solution (in this case, we were looking for an assumption and that was the biggest one in the argument). Since my explanation wasn't sufficient, please see the link below for an explanation that delves into what I explained, just from Powerscore's viewpoint: https://forum.powerscore.com/viewtopic.php?t=9181

wickedvikram · Answer

Thanks a lot  nightblade354  for all the help and brainstorming.
This question was indeed challenging and a very minor information was missed that changed the whole reasoning. 
It was the word "Impossible", Powerscore explained it and this certainly destroys the option B

(B) Poor organization of information in a news story makes it impossible to understand the information.
Meaning:  People will not understand it at all. This is stronger than confusion. Hence, It's a strengthener not an assumption.
Assumption is one without which the argument can't stand or whose negation completely destroys the argument 
Negation: Poor organization of information in a news story does not make it impossible to understand the information.
N-Meaning:  Possible to understand, doesn't necessarily mean understood.

Also, for option A the direct meaning doesn't work for me (as I explained earlier) but negation test qualifies.

(A) It is not the number of broadcast news stories to which a person is exposed that is the source of the feeling of confusion.
Negation: It is the number of broadcast news stories to which a person is exposed that is the source of the feeling of confusion.
Meaning:  "Too Quick or Poorly Organized" are not the only reasons, as you and I explained earlier.

unraveled · Answer

Most people feel that they are being confused by the information from broadcast news. This could be the effect of the information’s being delivered too quickly or of its being poorly organized. Analysis of the information content of a typical broadcast news story shows that news stories are far lower in information density than the maximum information density with which most people can cope at any one time. So the information in typical broadcast news stories is poorly organized.

Which one of the following is an assumption that the argument requires in order for its conclusion to be properly drawn?

(A) It is not the number of broadcast news stories to which a person is exposed that is the source of the feeling of confusion.
Negation: It is the number of broadcast news stories to which a person is exposed that is the source of the feeling of confusion.

(B)  Poor organization of information  in a news story  makes it impossible to understand  the information. - WRONG. Straightforward reworded content of the passage. Passage indeed says the same.

(C) Being exposed to  more broadcast news stories  within a given day would help a  person to better understand the news . - WRONG. Like D and E, this is also similar in reasoning with that same aspect(more stories).

(D)  Most people can cope  with a very high information density. - WRONG. Passage content rephrased.

(E)  Some people  are being overwhelmed by too much information. - WRONG. Does not help validate the argument as 'some' can't be generalized. If 'some' is significant as in 'most'(although then it would go against the passage since most people can cope with high density, nonetheless the density is debatable here) then too it does not lets us believe or infer that it was poor organization of the stories that lead to confusion.

wickedvikram 
To negate an option your SC skill will be helpful.
In B, "Poor organization of information in a news story" is the noun and "makes" is verb and the latter part is the result of that verb(not going into details of grammar but hope you got the point). So, negation of option is negation of the verb/action of the noun in that option.

HTHs

Answer A.

pintukr · Answer

Most people feel that they are being confused by the information from broadcast news. This could be the effect of the information’s being delivered too quickly or of its being poorly organized. Analysis of the information content of a typical broadcast news story shows that news stories are far lower in information density than the maximum information density with which most people can cope at any one time. So the information in typical broadcast news stories is poorly organized.

Which one of the following is an assumption that the argument requires in order for its conclusion to be properly drawn?

(A) It is not the number of broadcast news stories to which a person is exposed that is the source of the feeling of confusion.

Provides an alternate reason for the confusion (if the prompt is 'negated') -- thus killing the argument that the confusion is created because the information in typical broadcast news stories is poorly organized...CORRECT answer

(B) Poor organization of information in a news story makes it impossible to understand the information.

A restatement of one of the premises of the argument..with an 'extreme' tinge to it.

(C) Being exposed to more broadcast news stories within a given day would help a person to better understand the news.

Just an additional piece of information.

(D) Most people can cope with a very high information density.

Already brought out in the stimulus that people can cope with higher information density compared to that in the prevailing broadcast news stories.

(E) Some people are being overwhelmed by too much information.

Out of scope..since, it is also an additional piece of information

(A) is the CORRECT answer

anmol950915 · Answer

(A) It is not the number of broadcast news stories to which a person is exposed that is the source of the feeling of confusion. 
 
 If confusion came from  too many stories  (not density or organization), the argument collapses. 
 So YES — the argument must assume this. 
  Strong contender.   
 (B) Poor organization of information in a news story makes it impossible to understand the information. 
 
 Too extreme — “impossible” is much stronger than necessary. 
 The argument only needs poor organization to contribute to confusion, not make understanding literally impossible. 
  Not necessary.   
 (C) Being exposed to more broadcast news stories within a given day would help a person to better understand the news. 
 
 Irrelevant. The argument never talks about more stories being  helpful . 
  Out of scope.   
 (D) Most people can cope with a very high information density. 
 
 The premise already says people can cope with  higher density than news actually has  — but does not require “very high.” 
 “Very high” is extreme. The argument only needs “higher than current level,” which is weaker. 
  Too strong — not required.   
 (E) Some people are being overwhelmed by too much information. 
 
 This contradicts the premise that information density is low, and the conclusion doesn’t need this at all. 
  Not required.
 
A is the answer

Most people feel that they are being confused by the information from

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

Most people feel that they are being confused by the information from

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