GWD23-40有争议

Q40:

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?

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Information on political issues disseminated through information services does not come almost entirely from advocacy groups that share a single bias.

4. Traditional news sources seldom report the views of political advocacy groups accurately.

5. Most people who get information on political issues from newspapers and other traditional news sources can readily identify the editorial biases of those sources.

TTGWD里的答案是C，但个人觉得有争议，因为文章说明了Since many groups are thus able to bypass traditional news sources, whose reporting is selective, 所以我认为是A，不知XDJM们有什么高见？

C)Information on political issues disseminated through information services does not come (almost entirely) from advocacy groups that share a single bias.

without the green words, C should be a perfect answer.

翻译得直白一些:

结论说：现代信息服务比传统的方式使人的政治观念更为平衡的

（所谓平衡就是既能知道民主党的理论又能听到共和党的理论，比如而已）

C取非说：现代信息传播是完全来自于拥有某一观念的鼓吹者，（既然这样那就是说不平衡了，就是垄断了）直接削弱结论

关于A,信息服务能够让很多人都知道某一党派的理论(比如民主党),当然也可以让很多人知道另一党派的理论,

如果取非:信息服务不能够让足够多的人知道,也就是不完全平衡了,也可能削弱原文结论,但削弱的没有C那样的无耻!

almost entirely   NOT EQUAL TO   enough people
      差别还是有 
      

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.

所以还是觉得C要好一些

1. 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.

信息服务可以被足够多的人获得以保证political advocacy能够使用这个服务达到传统信息来源可以达到的公众范围，如果没有这个条件，怎么比较信息服务和传统信息呢？？

关于C只是说了通过信息服务的来源，并没有说传统，怎么知道尽管来自信息服务的是偏激的，来自传统服务的不是更偏激的呢？结论说的是比起传统来，信息服务如何如何，没有参照物，是没有结论的！

继续讨论！

我觉得A说信息服务能够使得充分的人接触，用来保证政治鼓吹者来使用这些（信息服务）影响公众，而这个影响和传统的资源是一样的。

文中的结论是than, 比传统的方式更平衡，无法加强。

C a single bias已经说明是偏激了啊！

  文中没有提及，就不要自己去延伸。不要想传统服务的不是更偏激的呢，题目的核心主要还是新信息服务。

C取非，如果现代信息是偏激了，则推导出 和传统方式的信息是不平衡的，weaken

请大家指正！

挺同意蔚蓝的见解，也来说说偶滴理解。

这段话结论中的key word其实是more balanced picture，所以其assumption一就是说traditional不balanced,一就是说information service是怎么balanced的。

A中说的东东保证了两个渠道受众的广泛性是一样的，并没有涉及到balance的问题，只有C，强调了IS的not *** from advocacy groups that share a single bias。所以C是答案！

再看一次,C很好,

文原意是有政治立場的人會用一個新的方法來傳播他們的想法,而不是傳統的news,因為news是會被選擇的,因此,用新的方法的信息會比較平衡,

前提當然就是不同的人來做這件事,不然又是原本的媒體在搞,所傳播的資訊就又和之前的一樣,不同政治立場的聲音就聽不到了

A is not correct since in the argument,information services have many other clients ,"many groups"except political advocators ,to disseminate the information to the public via personal computer.So the more groups serevice has ,,the more balance she will get.

So A is just talking about the information disseminated by political advocacy,and it can't be used to say the information is more balanced.Since no competitors information.