Explanation
Reading the question: we can be pleased to see that we
have what is essentially a causal argument: news coverage of Africa is down
because armed conflicts have declined. Since we have a causal argument, we know
that we can create a filter using the concept of "another cause."
Creating a filter: we can imagine another cause to explain
the lower number of articles. For example, maybe something closer to our nation's
hearts has been going on since then and it has seized the stage and that's the
real reason coverage of Africa is down. We paraphrase what we're looking for as
"alternate cause of decreased coverage."
Applying the filter: Choices (A) through (C) strengthen
the argument, as much as anything. (D) allows the causal relationship suggested
to stand; it doesn't even bar the possibility that the news stations are out of
articles. Choice (E) gives us what we're looking for: an alternative
explanation.
Logical proof: we can use the negation test on choice (E).
Negating (E), we can suppose, what if news shows had not changed any policies about showing these stories? In that case,
policies at the news stations would not be an explanation for the decreased
coverage. And then it would appear more likely that the cause attributed by the
argument was correct. The negated (E) is a strengthener of the argument, so
non-negated (E) is a weakener of the argument. The
correct answer is (E).
If you believe you have found an error in this question or explanation, please contact us and include the question title or URL in your message.