Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author presents an explanation for the media’s increase in crime coverage: it’s the result of increased public interest in crime, rather than the result of actual increases in crime itself. Why would increased public interest in crime have an effect on media coverage? Because the media base their coverage largely on their audiences’ interests.
Identify Argument Part
The text in the question stem is part of the conclusion. It’s the author’s preferred explanation for why the media are devoting more coverage to crime.
A
It supports the conclusion that the media now devote more coverage to crime than the crime rate alone justifies.
It is part of the main conclusion—it doesn’t support any other conclusion. Also, there is never any claim that the media give more coverage to crime than the crime rate justifies.
B
It is presented as evidence that the media decide what to cover and to what extent to cover it depending on the interests of the public.
This gets the argument’s support structure backward. The fact that the media base coverage decisions on the public’s interests provides evidence to believe the proposition in the question stem: the true cause of the media’s growing crime coverage is increased public interest.
C
It is a counterexample to the claim that the media devote more coverage to crime now than they did ten years ago.
It is an explanation for the phenomenon described here—not a counterexample. The author agrees that the media devote more coverage to crime now, and then explains why this is so.
D
It is a generalization based on the claim that the crime rate has increased over the past ten years.
It can’t be a generalization based on this claim, because this claim is never made in the stimulus. The proposition in the question stem is a hypothesis.
E
It is offered as an alternative explanation of why the media devote more coverage to crime now than they did ten years ago.
This describes the role of the proposition in the question stem. It’s the author’s explanation, which he offers as an alternative to the theory that the media’s growing crime coverage is due to an increase in crime itself.
Summary
Viruses can have beneficial effects.
Some viruses kill more-complex organisms. Some of these more-complex organisms that are killed by viruses are deadly to humans.
Viruses have simple structures. Modifying these structures can make a virus deadly to humans.
Random mutations commonly produce changes in the structures of viruses.
Any virus can easily become dangerous to humans.
Some viruses kill more-complex organisms. Some of these more-complex organisms that are killed by viruses are deadly to humans.
Viruses have simple structures. Modifying these structures can make a virus deadly to humans.
Random mutations commonly produce changes in the structures of viruses.
Any virus can easily become dangerous to humans.
Notable Valid Inferences
There’s no clear inference to draw. I’d rely on process of elimination to identify what must be false.
A
Random mutation makes some deadly viruses beneficial to humans.
Could be true. We know mutations can make viruses dangerous. That doesn’t mean mutations can’t make deadly viruses beneficial.
B
Some organisms of greater complexity than viruses are no more likely than viruses to undergo significant alterations through random mutation.
Could be true. It’s possible that there are some viruses that are less likely or equally likely as viruses to undergo major changes from mutations. We were never told that viruses are the least likely to undergo major changes from mutation.
C
Some microorganisms that are more complex than viruses are beneficial to humans.
We know some microorganisms that are more complex than viruses can kill humans. But there could be other microorganisms that are more complex than viruses that are beneficial to humans.
D
Some viruses that fail to kill other viruses that are deadly to humans are nevertheless beneficial to humans.
Could be true. Some viruses could be beneficial in other ways besides killing organisms that are deadly to humans. That was just one example of a benefit.
E
No virus that is deadly to organisms of greater complexity than itself is beneficial to humans.
Must be false. We know some viruses kill more-complex organisms that are deadly to humans. So these viruses are beneficial to humans by killing organisms that might kill humans.