Q2 - Popular science publications that explain

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Principle Support (Strengthen/Sufficient)

Stimulus Breakdown:
To reach a wide audience, a science mag has to trade accuracy for metaphorical writing. Therefore, the science mags shouldn't try to reach a wide audience.

Answer Anticipation:
These Principle Strengthen questions usually ask you to connect the situation with the conclusion. Here, I'd expect the answer to state that a science publication shouldn't sacrifice accuracy in order to reach a wider audience.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Degree. This answer choice brings up a balance, whereas the conclusion of the argument is that the magazines should give up on the wide audience.

(B) Out of scope. This comparison relates "newness" to difficulty in explaining. This is unrelated to accuracy and metaphor - something being hard to do doesn't mean that it can be explained more or less with metaphor.

(C) Boom. The balance between metaphor (i.e., wide-audience ready) and accuracy should fall on the side of accuracy.

(D) Opposite. The argument sides with accuracy, not with reaching a wide audience.

(E) Out of scope. This answer doesn't state if accuracy or circulation is more important.

Takeaway/Pattern:
For a Principle Strengthen question that picks one thing over another, look for the answer stating that was the right call.

#officialexplanation