PrepTest 73, Logical Reasoning 2, Question 24
Transcript
Question 24, when a question asks you for something that if it were assumed would allow the conclusion to be properly inferred, you're dealing with a sufficient assumption question. Your job on these is to find the conclusion, consider the evidence you already have, and then find the answer choice that gives you an extra piece of information that when added to what you already have, will guarantee that the conclusion is true.
No doubts at all, the conclusion is absolutely true if the evidence from the answer is added to the evidence you already have. Let's see what we're trying to prove and what the evidence we already have is. What we're trying to prove is the first sentence, clearly a democracy cannot thrive without effective news media. After all, our first piece of evidence, a democracy cannot thrive without an electorate that is knowledgeable about important political issues.
And then the second half of this sentence is another piece of evidence, an electorate can be knowledgeable in this way only if it has access to unbiased information about the government. Now, if your formal logic detectors are going off, that's a good thing, all three of these statements could be written as formal logic statements. The conclusion, in order to thrive you have to have a news media, the first pieces of evidence, in order to thrive you have to have a knowledgeable electorate and the second piece, in order to have a knowledgeable electorate, you need access to unbiased information.
If we rearrange these, you can see the gap that we've got to fill. So in order to thrive, you need an educated electorate and in order to have an educated, knowledgeable electorate, you have to have a source of unbiased information. So we can prove that in order for democracies to thrive, they have to have a source of unbiased information.
But the conclusion here is, in order for them to thrive, they need the news media. There's a gap there between a source of unbiased information and the news media, we need to fill that gap. So if we were to find out that in order to have a source of unbiased information, you have to have a healthy news media, then that would prove everything, thriving needs the electorate, the electorate needs unbiased information, unbiased information needs the news media, thus, in order to thrive, you need the news media.
That's what we're gonna be looking for in the answer choices, very formal questions, you can often make a very strong prediction as to what you're looking for. And note, they could also give it to us as the contrapositive, so they could also say, if you dont have a news media, then you wont have a source of unbiased information. Let's see what the answers say.
Answer choice A, all societies that have effective news media are thriving democracies. That's not what we want, if we put that in formal terms, that would be, if you have a news media you will thrive. We're trying to prove the inverse of that, in order to thrive you need a news media. This won't help us with what we want, so it's not our answer.
Answer choice B, if the electorate has access to unbiased information, then it would be knowledgeable. This is another formal error, this is the inverse of something they've already told us, and it won't help us fill that gap. Answer choice C, a democracy will thrive if its electorate is knowledgeable about important political issues, this is another flip, it's not what we're looking for.
Answer choice D, a democracy can't thrive if the electorate is exposed to biased information about the government. This is completely new, that any bias means you can't thrive. It's not what we're looking for or it's not gonna fill that gap, that means that E must be what we're looking for? Without effective news media, an electorate will not have access to unbiased information about the government.
Absolutely, that's the contrapositive. No news media, no unbiased information, it's what we predicted, it is our answer.
Read full transcriptNo doubts at all, the conclusion is absolutely true if the evidence from the answer is added to the evidence you already have. Let's see what we're trying to prove and what the evidence we already have is. What we're trying to prove is the first sentence, clearly a democracy cannot thrive without effective news media. After all, our first piece of evidence, a democracy cannot thrive without an electorate that is knowledgeable about important political issues.
And then the second half of this sentence is another piece of evidence, an electorate can be knowledgeable in this way only if it has access to unbiased information about the government. Now, if your formal logic detectors are going off, that's a good thing, all three of these statements could be written as formal logic statements. The conclusion, in order to thrive you have to have a news media, the first pieces of evidence, in order to thrive you have to have a knowledgeable electorate and the second piece, in order to have a knowledgeable electorate, you need access to unbiased information.
If we rearrange these, you can see the gap that we've got to fill. So in order to thrive, you need an educated electorate and in order to have an educated, knowledgeable electorate, you have to have a source of unbiased information. So we can prove that in order for democracies to thrive, they have to have a source of unbiased information.
But the conclusion here is, in order for them to thrive, they need the news media. There's a gap there between a source of unbiased information and the news media, we need to fill that gap. So if we were to find out that in order to have a source of unbiased information, you have to have a healthy news media, then that would prove everything, thriving needs the electorate, the electorate needs unbiased information, unbiased information needs the news media, thus, in order to thrive, you need the news media.
That's what we're gonna be looking for in the answer choices, very formal questions, you can often make a very strong prediction as to what you're looking for. And note, they could also give it to us as the contrapositive, so they could also say, if you dont have a news media, then you wont have a source of unbiased information. Let's see what the answers say.
Answer choice A, all societies that have effective news media are thriving democracies. That's not what we want, if we put that in formal terms, that would be, if you have a news media you will thrive. We're trying to prove the inverse of that, in order to thrive you need a news media. This won't help us with what we want, so it's not our answer.
Answer choice B, if the electorate has access to unbiased information, then it would be knowledgeable. This is another formal error, this is the inverse of something they've already told us, and it won't help us fill that gap. Answer choice C, a democracy will thrive if its electorate is knowledgeable about important political issues, this is another flip, it's not what we're looking for.
Answer choice D, a democracy can't thrive if the electorate is exposed to biased information about the government. This is completely new, that any bias means you can't thrive. It's not what we're looking for or it's not gonna fill that gap, that means that E must be what we're looking for? Without effective news media, an electorate will not have access to unbiased information about the government.
Absolutely, that's the contrapositive. No news media, no unbiased information, it's what we predicted, it is our answer.
