The public is aware of the possibility of biases in the mass media and distrusts the media as too powerful. The body of information against which the public evaluates the plausibility of each new media report comes, however, from what the public has heard of through the mass media.
If the view above is correct, it provides a reason for accepting which one of the following conclusions?
(A) If there is a pervasive bias in the presentation of news by the mass media, it would be hard for the public to discern that bias.
(B) The mass media tailor their reports to confirm to a specific political agenda.
(C) The biases that news media impose on reporting tend not to be conscious distortions but rather part of a sense they share about what is interesting and believable.
(D) News reporters and their public hold largely the same views about what is most important in society, because news reporters come out of that society.
(E) When a news event occurs that contradicts a stereotype formerly incorporated to reporting by the mass media, the public is predisposed to believe reports of the event.
Why don't you just give the answer at the end? Fewer people will take lead to answer. Also, can you at least give others what your question or problem is, such as "did not understand the argument at all", "what choice C means", or "what is the reasoning of the argument" please.
suede 发表于 2003-7-13 15:13
The public is aware of the possibility of biases in the mass media and distrusts the media as too po ...
Question could be regarded also as one type of the necessary question.
If " the argument " is correct, then which answer as the conclusion must also be necessary.
Let us look for both the premises and conclusions to construct the argument first.
C: Public is aware of the possibility of biases in the mass media and distrusts the media as too powerful
P1: The body of information, against which the public evaluates the plausibility of each new media reports, comes from what the public has heard of through the mass media.
Let us engage with the information we currently have.
1. The body of information against A ( Which public Evaluates the plausibility of each new media reports ) comes from B ( what the public has heard of through the mass media )
( The things that what public has " not " heard of through the mass media ) would " not " be the body of the information against A. )
Would not it sounds weird to you ? The body of the information used to evaluate the plausibilities of mass media actually comes from mass media. Meanwhile, based on P1, public actually knows the biases of mass media and also distrusts the media as being too powerful.
Then how could public trust what they heard from mess media as the body of information to evaluate the plausibility ?
Anyway, lets looking into the answer options
A.
If Biases comes from mass media as the matter truly exist, it would be hard for the public to discern the bias.
Negate it: If biases comes from mass media as the matter truly exist, it would not be hard for the public to discern the bias.
Contrapositive of the negation : If it would be hard for the public to discern the bias, biases comes from mass media as the matter " does not " exist.
Wait a second ...
Ok.. If they discern the bias, then biases does not exist, then it must be true that whatever they heard of from the mass media as to compose the body of the information to evaluate plausibility of each new media reports must not contain any biases. Meanwhile, if it is also true, then how could the public aware of the possibilities of biases, sincere there is none ? Perfectly refute the argument that (when body of the info to evaluate the plausibility coms from the mass media, public must aware the biases and distrust the media as too powerful ) is true )
What to see is that if any version of the negation inferred from the option could overturn the original argument, it must be the necessary assumption that the original argument guarantees.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2003-7-13 15:13:00
