PrepTest 135, Section 1, Question 5
In its coverage of a controversy regarding a(55 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AMost of the(12 more words not shown)
- BMost viewers of(14 more words not shown)
- CIn the interviews,(19 more words not shown)
- DBefore the program(17 more words not shown)
- EThe business interests(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the program showed more opponents because there were more opponents?
The interviews ran two to one against the freeway. That tells us the balance of opinions shown on television. It doesn't yet tell us whether the station selected an unfair balance. Perhaps the station favored opponents, but perhaps that ratio reasonably reflected public opinion.
We should also be careful about where interviews come from. If a reporter went to a protest, the people there might be more strongly opposed than the public generally. That would raise a question about the sample. But this passage doesn't say there was a protest. We can't supply one and use it to decide whether the station was biased.
What we’re looking for
For this weaken question, I'd like evidence that the unequal coverage reflects the actual balance of views. An even split between supporters and opponents isn't automatically the fairest portrayal of a controversy.
Working the answers
- A
Viewers' prior awareness doesn't tell us whether the selection of interviews was biased. People could already know about the controversy and still watch coverage that fairly or unfairly represents the two sides.
- B
What viewers expect is different from what this program actually did. Viewers might expect some bias even from a fair program, or expect none from a biased one. Their expectations don't explain why the interviews ran two to one against the freeway.
- C
Stronger emotion doesn't establish that the station unfairly favored the opponents. Opponents could sincerely feel more strongly. Nor does that emotional difference show that the selection was fair. We need a connection to the charge of bias, not just a difference in how the interviewees spoke.
- DCorrect
Opponents outnumbered supporters by more than two to one before the broadcast. Now the program's two-to-one split looks much less suspicious: opponents really were the larger group. The program might even have given supporters a greater share than their numbers would suggest. This doesn't prove every aspect of the coverage was fair, but it gives us a reasonable explanation for the unequal interview count that doesn't require bias against the freeway.
- E
This supplies a possible motive for the station to oppose the freeway. If construction would hurt its business interests, we have more reason to suspect that it might favor negative coverage. That doesn't prove bias, but it points toward the argument's conclusion rather than weakening it.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.