Question

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author’s arguments?

• A. Behavioural traits that helped us in the days when we were hunter-gatherers continue to be present in modern-day humans.
• B. Behavioural traits that helped us in the days when we were hunter-gatherers are no longer found in modern-day humans.
• C. The negativity bias makes us more likely to be affected by depressing or sad news.
• D. We have certain behavioural characteristics that affect how we perceive and are affected by sad news.
• A. Contemporary media continuously exposes us to exciting news and information, which may be just like the things we usually experience in our lives.
• B. Contemporary media continuously exposes us to exciting news and information, which may be very unlike the kinds of things we usually encounter in our lives.
• C. Contemporary media continuously exposes us to boring news and information, which may be very unlike the kinds of things we usually encounter in our lives.
• D. Contemporary media continuously exposes us to boring news and information, which may be just like the things we usually experience in our lives.
• A. Constantly being exposed to negative news gives us a warped perspective of the world.
• B. In our hunting and gathering days, it was better for us to be unnecessarily scared rather than being scared too little.
• C. The news modern media exposes us to is just like our day-to-day experiences.
• D. The news modern media exposes us to is very different from our day-to-day experiences.
• A. We are more likely to notice a story about a billionaire donating their money to charity than a story about an airplane crash.
• B. We are more likely to be attracted to a news article about a rise in life expectancy in our country than a news article about a murder in our city.
• C. We are more likely to notice a story about increasing pollution levels than a story about improving educational levels in schools.
• D. We are more likely to form our opinion of the world based on the information available to us rather than information we do not have access to.
• A. Ensuring that we do not seek out news sources and stories that we may not otherwise have been exposed to.
• B. Following only one news source and limiting our perspective of the world to that one source.
• C. Avoiding all positive news stories, and instead only reading news stories about disasters and tragedies.
• D. Ensuring that we seek out news sources and stories that we may not otherwise have been exposed to.
• A. Our ideas about the world are shaped by the information we are exposed to.
• B. Modern media is concerned only with making massive profits.
• C. Modern journalists generate news stories much faster than in the old days.
• D. Humans once lived as hunter-gatherers.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Identify the core of the author’s argument
The author claims that humans are prone to being overly affected by bad news due to negativity bias and availability bias.
The negativity bias is linked to evolutionary traits from our hunter-gatherer days, where being more sensitive to danger improved survival chances.
Therefore, the argument assumes these ancient traits still influence modern human perception. Step 2: Find what would weaken this link
If it turns out that these evolutionary behavioural traits no longer exist in modern humans, the claimed evolutionary basis for current susceptibility to bad news collapses.
Without these traits, the link between hunter-gatherer psychology and our present-day reactions to media would be invalid.
Step 3: Option-by-option analysis
(A) Reinforces the author’s assumption — strengthens rather than weakens.
(B) Directly contradicts the assumption — if the traits are gone, the evolutionary explanation fails. Correct.
(C) Restates part of the author’s claim about negativity bias — strengthens, not weakens.
(D) Supports the idea that certain behavioural characteristics still affect us — strengthens, not weakens.
\[ \boxed{\text{(B) removes the evolutionary basis for modern susceptibility to bad news.}} \]

Answer 2

The author's argument rests on negativity bias being an evolutionary leftover from our hunter-gatherer past that still shapes how modern humans react to news. Weakening this argument means showing that link between the past trait and present-day behavior does not actually hold.

1. Option A: Saying these hunter-gatherer traits are still present in modern humans supports exactly what the author assumes, so this strengthens the argument instead of weakening it.
2. Option B: Saying these traits are no longer found in modern humans removes the very foundation the author's explanation depends on. If the evolutionary trait is gone, it can't be the reason we react to bad news the way we do today.
3. Option C: This just restates the author's own description of negativity bias affecting our reaction to sad news, adding no challenge to the argument.
4. Option D: Confirming that behavioral traits still shape how we perceive news again supports the author's claim rather than undercutting it.

Only option B removes the evolutionary basis the author's argument depends on, which is what makes it the weakening statement.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option B.

Answer 3

Step 1: Understand the author's media critique
The passage argues that modern media thrives on sensational, shocking, and extreme stories, often personalised to what grabs our attention.
It is contrasted with the ordinary, mundane lives that most people actually lead.
The author even calls it “an assault on the mundane” — implying that what we see in the news is very different from our daily experiences.
Step 2: Connect to the correct option
If media is feeding us highly exciting, shocking content and avoiding the “boring” reality, then it matches the description in (B) — exciting news very unlike our own daily lives.
Step 3: Eliminate wrong choices
(A) suggests the news is just like daily life — contradicts the author’s view.
(C) says media gives boring news — opposite of “clickbait” and “sensational” content.
(D) has both boring content and similarity to daily life — neither fits the passage.
\[ \boxed{\text{(B) fits the author’s description of sensationalised media unlike real life.}} \]

Answer 4

The passage describes modern media as chasing sensational, shocking stories because "boring" everyday life doesn't sell ads, and it calls this trend "an assault on the mundane." Whatever the author agrees with has to combine "exciting/sensational" content with content that is far removed from ordinary daily life.

1. Option A: Says the exciting news we see is just like our daily lives, but the passage explicitly contrasts sensational content with the "boring" reality most people live, so this option gets the comparison backward.
2. Option B: Combines exciting, sensational content with content that is very unlike our daily experience, which matches the passage's own contrast between clickbait stories and ordinary, predictable lives.
3. Option C: Calls the content "boring," but the whole passage argues the opposite, that media is pushed toward sensational, attention-grabbing stories precisely because boring content doesn't sell.
4. Option D: Combines "boring" with "just like our lives," which fits ordinary daily experience itself, not what the media actually shows us according to the passage.

Only option B captures both halves of the passage's point: the news is exciting, and it is far removed from how most people actually live.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option B.

Answer 5

Step 1: Identify the author's main point
The author contrasts “boring lives” (real life) with sensational, attention-grabbing media stories.
He says the modern news is “an assault on the mundane,” implying it shows us events far removed from our ordinary lives.
Step 2: Apply the logic to the options
(A) is true according to the passage, but it’s not the most direct inference from the “boring lives” remark.
(B) relates to evolutionary psychology, but the question focuses on modern media.
(C) directly contradicts the author’s idea — modern news is not like daily life.
(D) fits perfectly — sensational news is far removed from ordinary experience.
\[ \boxed{\text{(D) aligns with the author’s view of sensationalised, atypical news content.}} \]

Answer 6

This question anchors specifically on the "nice neighbours with boring lives" remark plus the argument about modern media's nature. The author uses that remark to contrast ordinary, unremarkable life with the sensational content media actually delivers, so the answer needs to follow directly from that specific contrast.

1. Option A: This is consistent with the passage overall, but it is a broader point about distorted perspective, not the direct inference from the "boring lives" remark and the media argument the question points to.
2. Option B: This is about hunter-gatherer psychology and negativity bias, a separate strand of the passage from the point about modern media and "boring lives," so it doesn't follow from the specific remark cited.
3. Option C: Says the news matches daily experience, which is the opposite of what "boring lives" versus sensational media is meant to show.
4. Option D: Follows directly: if most lives are actually "nice but boring," and media instead serves up sensational, clickbait content, then that content has to be very different from what people actually experience day to day.

Option D is the most direct consequence of pairing the "boring lives" remark with the media argument, which is exactly what the question asks for.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option D.

Answer 7

Step 1: Recall the definition of negativity bias
Negativity bias means humans pay more attention to negative or threatening information than positive or neutral information.
Step 2: Apply to options
(A) Contradicts — here, a positive story (charity) is more likely noticed, which goes against negativity bias.
(B) Contradicts — a rise in life expectancy (positive) being preferred is not consistent with negativity bias.
(C) Fits — pollution increase is negative, educational improvement is positive; negativity bias predicts the negative story will get more attention.
(D) Relates to availability bias, not negativity bias.
\[ \boxed{\text{(C) matches the definition of negativity bias.}} \]

Answer 8

Negativity bias, as the passage defines it, means people pay more attention to bad news than good news. Whatever the correct option is, it has to pit a negative story against a positive one and predict that the negative one gets noticed more.

1. Option A: Predicts a positive story, a billionaire donating to charity, gets noticed over a negative one, an airplane crash. That is the reverse of what negativity bias predicts.
2. Option B: Predicts attraction to a positive story, rising life expectancy, over a negative one, a murder. Again, this runs opposite to what negativity bias says should happen.
3. Option C: Predicts a negative story, increasing pollution, gets noticed over a positive one, improving education. This is exactly the pattern negativity bias describes, more attention to the bad than the good.
4. Option D: Describes forming opinions from whatever information is available, which is the definition of availability bias covered later in the passage, not negativity bias.

Only option C correctly pairs a negative story with a positive one and predicts the negative one wins out, matching the definition of negativity bias.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option C.

Answer 9

Step 1: Recall the definition of availability bias
Availability bias is the tendency to think that something is more common or important if examples come easily to mind — often because we’ve been exposed to them more.
Step 2: Counteracting availability bias
To avoid a skewed perspective, we must deliberately seek out less-represented or alternative information.
This widens the information pool and reduces over-reliance on the easily available examples.
Step 3: Eliminate wrong options
(A) and (B) reduce diversity of exposure — worsens the bias.
(C) is the opposite — it amplifies negativity bias.
(D) is correct because it increases exposure to varied content.
\[ \boxed{\text{(D) directly tackles the root cause of availability bias.}} \]

Answer 10

Availability bias means judging something as common just because examples of it come easily to mind, usually from repeated exposure. Countering it means deliberately widening what a person is exposed to, not narrowing it.

1. Option A: Avoiding sources and stories outside one's usual exposure keeps the same narrow set of examples in mind, which does nothing to counter the bias and may even reinforce it.
2. Option B: Sticking to a single news source narrows exposure even further, feeding availability bias rather than fighting it.
3. Option C: Reading only disaster and tragedy stories increases exposure to negative examples, which plays into negativity bias, not availability bias, and does not widen the range of information at all.
4. Option D: Actively seeking out sources and stories a person would not otherwise encounter directly increases the range of examples available to them, which is the direct opposite of what creates availability bias in the first place.

Only option D increases the diversity of information a person is exposed to, which is what actually counters availability bias.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option D.

Answer 11

Step 1: Identify the conclusion and reasoning
The author claims: Frequent exposure to horrific stories \Rightarrow distorted view of reality.
This requires assuming that what we are exposed to actually influences our perception of the world. Step 2: Link to the assumption
If our perceptions were independent of the news we consume, the argument would collapse.
(A) states exactly the needed link — exposure shapes worldview.
Step 3: Eliminate wrong options
(B) may be true but is not necessary for the argument.
(C) is irrelevant to the distortion of worldview.
(D) relates to evolutionary traits, but the claim here is about news exposure.
\[ \boxed{\text{(A) is the critical assumption connecting exposure to distorted worldview.}} \]

Answer 12

The author argues that being bombarded with horrific stories skews our view of the world. For that conclusion to follow logically, there must be an unstated link connecting exposure to these stories with how we actually see the world. The correct option is the assumption that, if false, would break that link.

1. Option A: If our ideas about the world are shaped by what we are exposed to, then heavy exposure to horrific stories would naturally distort our view. Without this assumption, being exposed to horrific stories would have no reason to affect our perception at all, so the argument needs it.
2. Option B: Whether modern media cares only about profit is not required for the specific claim that exposure to horrific stories skews perception; the argument would still hold even if profit weren't the sole motive.
3. Option C: How quickly journalists generate stories has no bearing on whether exposure to those stories distorts our view of the world; it's a separate point about speed, not perception.
4. Option D: That humans lived as hunter-gatherers is background for a different part of the passage, about negativity bias, not about how current exposure to media shapes current perception.

Only option A supplies the missing link between exposure and perception that the author's conclusion actually depends on.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option A.