sat suite question viewer
As media consumption has become increasingly multiplatform and socially mediated, active news acquisition has diminished in favor of an attitude known as “news finds me” (NFM), in which people passively rely on their social networks and ambient media environments for information about current events. Homero Gil de Zúñiga and Trevor Diehl examined data on a representative group of adults in the United States to determine participants’ strength of NFM attitude, political knowledge, and political interest. Although no major election took place sufficiently near the study for Gil de Zúñiga and Diehl to identify causality between NFM and voting behavior, they did posit that NFM may reduce voting probability through an indirect effect.
Which finding, if true, would most directly support the idea advanced by Gil de Zúñiga and Diehl?
Explanation
Choice B is the best answer because it presents a finding that, if true, would most directly support the idea advanced by Homero Gil de Zúñiga and Trevor Diehl that NFM ("news finds me") attitude may reduce voting probability through an indirect effect. The text describes NFM as an attitude that has lowered people’s interest in actively acquiring news and introduces Gil de Zúñiga and Diehl’s study on the effects of NFM on people in the United States’ political knowledge and interest. The text goes on to say that despite the fact that the study didn’t occur near a major election, Gil de Zúñiga and Diehl still conclude that NFA may reduce voting probability. If the likelihood, or probability, that a person will vote is linked to that person’s level of political knowledge and interest, that would suggest that negatively affecting a person’s level of political knowledge and interest would also negatively affect how likely that person is to vote. Thus, if NFM attitude has a negative effect on political knowledge and interest, then it would also likely reduce voting probability.
Choice A is incorrect because the finding that NFM attitude increases as major elections approach wouldn’t address the effect of NFM on the likelihood of voting, which is the idea advanced by Gil de Zúñiga and Diehl. Moreover, although the text mentions that there were no major elections that occurred near the time of the study, it doesn’t discern between major and minor elections when discussing voting probability. Choice C is incorrect because finding that NFM attitude shows little correlation with either political knowledge or political interest would undermine, not support, Gil de Zúñiga and Diehl’s idea that NFM may reduce voting probability because it suggests that NFM has no effect on political knowledge or political interest. Choice D is incorrect. Although Gil de Zúñiga and Diehl’s idea would be supported by the finding that the likelihood of voting increases as political knowledge increases, nothing in the text suggests that the researchers’ idea hinges on the size of people’s social networks.