Question

Despite a steady decrease in the average number of hours worked per person per week, the share of the population that reads a daily newspaper has declined greatly in the past 20 years. But the percentage of the population that watches television daily has shown a similarly dramatic increase over the same period. Clearly, increased television viewing has caused a simultaneous decline in newspaper reading. Which one of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the explanation given above for the decline in newspaper reading? (A) There has been a dramatic increase over the past 20 years in the percentage of people who tell polltakers that television is their primary source of information about current events. (B) Of those members of the population who do not watch television, the percentage who read a newspaper every day has also shown a dramatic decrease. (C) The time people spend with the books and newspapers they read has increased, on average, from 1 to 3 hours per week in the past 20 years. (D) People who spend large amounts of time each day watching television are less able to process and remember printed information than are those who do not watch television. (E) A typical television set is on 6 hours a day, down from an average of \(61 / 2\) hours a day 5 years ago.

Short answer

Option B is most damaging because it suggests factors other than TV affect newspaper readership.

Step-by-step solution

Understanding the Argument

The argument suggests that the rise in daily television viewing has caused the decline in daily newspaper reading. It implies a causal relationship between these two trends over the past 20 years.

Identifying the Critical Point

To weaken the claim that increased television viewing has led to a decline in newspaper reading, we need to provide evidence that the two trends are not causally linked.

Evaluating Each Option

We need to evaluate each option to determine which fact most strongly contradicts the proposed explanation of the decline in newspaper reading being caused by increased television viewing.

Analyzing Option A

Option A suggests an increase in the percentage of people who view television as their primary information source, which supports the argument that television is replacing newspapers.

Analyzing Option B

Option B states that even among those who do not watch television, the percentage reading newspapers daily has declined. This suggests that factors other than television viewing affect newspaper readership, challenging the argument's direct causal link.

Analyzing Option C

Option C indicates an increase in time spent on books and newspapers, hinting at a separate factor increasing engagement in reading materials, not weakening the argument about television's impact.

Analyzing Option D

Option D claims that heavy television watchers are less capable of processing printed information. While it associates TV watching with reading ability, it doesn't directly contradict the causation proposed in the argument.

Analyzing Option E

Option E notes a decrease in the average hours a TV is on, which does not connect directly to the argument about increasing daily viewing causing reduced newspaper readership.

Identifying the Most Damaging Fact

Since Option B highlights that newspaper readership has declined even among those who do not watch television, it directly undermines the argument that increased television watching is the cause of the decline in newspaper reading.

Key concepts

causal reasoning

Causal reasoning is the process of identifying and understanding the cause-and-effect relationships between different events or variables. When we look at this problem, causal reasoning is used to assert a link between increased television viewing and decreased newspaper reading. The original argument infers that watching more TV causes people to read newspapers less.
However, such a causal claim can be overly simplistic. There are often multiple factors at play for any given effect, and correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. For example, even if data shows that as TV watching goes up, newspaper reading goes down, they might both be caused by a third factor, such as changes in technology or lifestyle habits.
In our exercise, analyzing option B provides a scenario where both TV viewing and newspaper reading are affected not by each other but potentially by another unnoticed influence. By finding this, we challenge the supposed causal link, proving that understanding the real cause of changes often requires deeper investigation beyond surface observations.

argument evaluation

Argument evaluation is the skill of critically assessing the strength and validity of a given argument. It requires an understanding of whether the premises logically lead to the conclusion and whether evidence supports the argument’s claim. This involves looking for any assumptions that are being made without proof.

• In our exercise, the initial argument is that the decline in newspaper reading is directly due to increased television watching.
• The task is to evaluate this by checking if this reasoning holds up under scrutiny. Option B is particularly valuable for argument evaluation.
• It suggests a decline in newspaper reading among those who do not watch TV, indicating the argument might be built on a weak premise that TV is the sole cause.

To effectively evaluate arguments, it’s crucial to look for alternate explanations and to ask whether other factors could account for the observed phenomena. Only then can one judge the argument's robustness and validity.

critical thinking

Critical thinking involves analyzing facts objectively, comprehending complex problems, and evaluating arguments to form a reasoned judgment. This skill helps identify biases, assumptions, and logical fallacies. It's essential when you need to decide on the most damaging counterpoint to a causative argument, like in the given exercise.

Critical thinking lets you dissect the structure of the argument. Before accepting the conclusion, ask questions such as:

• Are there other plausible explanations?
• Is the evidence sufficient and relevant?
• Are any assumptions taken for granted?

By engaging in these questions, you would note that option B demonstrates that newspaper readership declined even among non-TV watchers, implying an alternative cause. In this problem, using critical thinking helps unravel complexity, providing clarity and offering deep insights that go beyond a surface-level interpretation. It shows that multiple causative factors likely exist, and one should explore these before concluding.