Q17 - Critics worry that pessimistic

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Inference (Most Strongly Supported)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Critics: Pessimistic news reports cause people to think the economy is bad.
Journalists: We can't worry about the impact of our news.
Everyone has direct experience of the economy.
People don't defer to journalists when they have direct experience of something.

Answer Anticipation:
Those two statements of fact both talk about direct experience, so the inference will probably come from there. Combining them, we can infer that people don't defer to journalists on the economy. If that's the case, it seems the worry of these critics might be unfounded since the people wouldn't defer to journalists on the economy; at most, the journalists could reinforce a negative view that people already shared.

Correct answer:
(D)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Tempting! The stimulus does suggest the critics are wrong, but the inference is that they're wrong to think pessimistic news reports hurt the economy. It could be correct that overall confidence being hurt by day-to-day experience with the economy has a negative impact.

(B) Out of scope. The stimulus doesn't talk about accuracy/harm in other areas of coverage.

(C) Opposite. The stimulus states that the economy is something people experience every day, and so people won't defer to journalists on the subject. Since that is true, it's unlikely pessimistic news reports will have any impact on the economy.

(D) Boom. Exactly what we predicted by combining statements that shared terms. Since people won't defer to jounralists on the economy, it's unlikely that these reports will have an impact.

(E) Generalization/out of scope. This answer choice is too broad by going outside of the immediate topic (the economy). It's also out of scope by mentioning what journalists should be concerned about - even if their stories could have a negative impact, it's not certain they should care (maybe reporting the truth is more important).

Takeaway/Pattern:
Look for overlapping statements in the stimulus for Inference questions, and combine them when you can.

#officialexplanation

[ying_yingjj]

Can someone help me out on this question?

I was re-reading the 3 statements, but I can only get the very opposite result from the correct answer D.

1st sentence: Critics say: pessimistic news causes people lose confidence on economy thus may harm the eco.
2nd sentence: Journalists say: if we want to do a good job on our jobs ----> we can not worry about the effects (e.g. harming the economy)
3rd sentence: study shows: if matters are directly experienced in people's lives -----> people don't defer to the J (journalists)

to translate the 3rd sentence:
if matters are directly experienced in people's lives, such as economy -----> people disagree with the J.
J says, we CAN NOT worry about the effects. So to add all the info above we get:
people think J SHOULD worry about their effects on economy, because economy is experienced by people everyday. Thus C is the answer.

No matter how many times I read the stimulus, I just can not get D as the correct answer.

It is like, let's say the critics are Jennet Yellen group, Journalists are Bill Oreille group. Yellen says, hey Bill, stop spreading the negative news, consumers are not spending bc your reports. Bill says, sorry, can not help it. I gotta do my job, my job is to report the news without worrying what consumers think or feel. Then a 3rd group, researchers did a survey, they found: on the matters that people experience directly in life, such as economy, people disagree with Bill Oreilly. Bill Oreilly's group would better worry about what they say to the consumers. As a result, the negative news economy report does put a shadow on consumers' confidence.

What did I do wrong?

Thank you,

[maryadkins]

You get it right up until where you somehow go from people not relying on journalists' opinions to (C).

I don't know where your'e getting this:

So to add all the info above we get:
people think J SHOULD worry about their effects on economy, because economy is experienced by people everyday. Thus C is the answer.

If people don't rely on journalists on matters that they have experienced directly (like the economy), they aren't going to rely on journalists to influence their opinions about the economy. (D) is true. (C) is not.

Remember also that this is an Inference question and not about what journalists should or shouldn't care about.

(A) is not supported because that particular point isn't addressed. The issue is not whether the economy is affected by people's opinions of it, but how affected people are by journalists' reporting.

(B) reverses the logic of what we're told. We are told:

if directly experience --> no impact

impact --> no direct experience

(B) says: no direct experience --> impact

Wrong.

(E) makes it about what journalists SHOULD be concerned about, which isn't discussed.

[haeeunjee]

I would also rule out (B) just because it's out-of-scope from the subject matter. We're talking about the economy, who knows that the author would say about foreign policy.