Introduction / Context:
The statement criticizes television for inflating perceived risk and fostering passivity. We must select the conclusion that directly reflects this causal claim without exaggeration.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- TV amplifies fear of victimization.
- TV encourages passive acceptance.
- We seek the conclusion that integrates both: fear + passivity → helplessness.
Concept / Approach:
- A good conclusion paraphrases the main claim, not a new claim (e.g., that TV causes crime) or a policy prescription (e.g., ban TV).
Step-by-Step Solution:
Map “high risk perception” + “passive acceptance” = “feeling of helpless vulnerability.”Choose the option that best expresses this synthesis.
Verification / Alternative check:
Option d mirrors the author’s thrust precisely. Other options either overreach causally or introduce new claims.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
a: Says TV promotes crime—unstated. b: Compares viewers to others without evidence. c: Policy recommendation not in the premise. e: Redundant, as a clear matching option exists.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing descriptive critique with prescriptive advice or causal claims not present.
Final Answer:
TV promotes a feeling of helpless vulnerability in viewers.
Discussion & Comments