PrepTest 151, Section 4, Question 18

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  The argument concerns outlets' reporting standards and business strategies, not whether their individual journalists are equally partisan. Journalists could have different personal views or different degrees of partisanship while the outlets still followed the described strategies. Equality between those groups isn't required.

• B

  The blogger doesn't need everyone to prefer objective reporting over reporting that agrees with them. Some readers could prefer partisan coverage while a traditional newspaper tried to avoid offending a broader range of readers. A general ranking of audience preferences goes beyond what the proposed business explanation needs.

• C

  Different strategies don't require the newer outlets to be gaining popularity right now. They could already have established audiences, or their audiences could be stable. The argument explains why the outlets take different approaches, not the current direction of their market shares.

• D
  Correct

  Here is the connection I took for granted while reading. The traditional newspapers wanted to avoid offending potential readers, and that goal supposedly explains their adoption of objectivity. They must therefore have regarded objective reporting as less likely to offend than openly partisan reporting. Otherwise, why would that goal point them toward objectivity?

  D concerns what the newspapers believed about the relative risk of offense. We don't have to prove that objective reporting never offends anyone. The assumption connects the stated business objective to the choice of reporting standard.

• E

  Explaining a standard partly in terms of business incentives doesn't establish that there is no basis for treating it as essential to good journalism. There could be professional or ethical reasons for valuing objectivity as well. The blogger's explanation doesn't require dismissing every such justification.