PT60 section 1 #20 (lr) Forum

[june2014]

I don't understand how (D) is a necessary assumption of this argument. Can't the conclusion still hold true even if (D) is negated, since it's possible that the medium that fills the gap left by radio is not popular among people and is used by only a few people out of a billion? If that's the case, it doesn't matter whether or not there's a medium that fills the gap left by radio because that medium won't be used by a lot of people anyway, and TV is now the dominant form of popular entertainment. Can anyone tell me where I am wrong? Thanks!.

[Jeffort]

The way you are looking at it would be valid if (D) said 'can fill the gap' instead of 'fills the gap'. The way (D) is phrased 'fills' is definite, saying it actually does happen/is that way, not just that there is something/nothing else people could do to exercise their imagination but may choose not to do. Negated, it says something fills the gap, meaning people actually do something that exercises their imagination the way radio did, not just that there is something else they could do if they wanted, and thereby destroys the conclusion that TV watchers use their imaginations less. They could be doing something that exercises their imagination (like reading Harry Potter books) in addition to having TV as their primary source of entertainment.

The argument and assumption are focused on what IS the case, not just about available possibilities/options, other ways things could be. (D) is a direct statement about what is actually happening in terms of the gap being filled or not, not just about availability of substitutes for radio to fill the imagination gap. Make sense?

[june2014]

I finally get it. Thanks so much!