CHAPTER 1

FUNDAMENTAL UNIT OF REASONING: THE ARGUMENT

Main focus of chapter: deductive arguments (logically airtight arguments)

What is it to believe something for good reason?

o Identifiable cause
o Justification/warrant (can be rationally defended with evidence)

People are often in a position to offer rationale for holding their beliefs/performing actions
o We must be right/ many of our beliefs are truisms
o Many times it will be important to find out whether one/both of the competing claims is a genuine
mistake

ASSERT: practice of presenting statements as true

o Telling one another the facts as we see them
o To assert is to undertake a kind of obligation: to defend or retract the assertion in the face of the
questioning/when confronted with contrary evidence.

ARGUMENTS: fundamental units of rational exchange (presentation of reasons)

An argument is a set of statements presented as true and has important internal relations: some of the
statements are premises intended to provide evidence for the conclusion.

Property of an argument that succeeds in supporting its conclusion is soundness.

o A sound argument proves its conclusions as true
o 2 SUB PROPERTIES

IS VALID

HAS ALL TRUE PREMISES

Assertions rest on the arguments that support them

You may change your own mind in various ways by going through the process of mounting an argument
o Process of making reasoning public is also about evaluating ones own reasoning by putting it in its
clearest/most specific form.

WHAT MAKES AN ARGUMENT GOOD?

2 WAYS OF APPROACHING THE STUDY OF ARGUMENTS

o 1. Argumentation as a rational practice

Stresses arguing is a process of communicative context

A practice by which we aim to show the reasonableness of an assertion up to whatever

standard of reasonableness is called for in the context

Educating/explaining ways of rationalizing or ordering reasons

A good argument is the presentation of a collection of premises that jointly are rationally
persuasive of a conclusion.
o 2. Arguments are linguistic/logical objects

A set of sentences

A good argument can be defined in terms of the truth of the premises in logical relation to
a conclusion

A good argument is defined as sound

Notion of reasonableness can be clarified in terms of more exact/idealized notion of

soundness

when giving an argument it is not enough to produce premises that happen to be true

LAWS OF THOUGHT (classical logic)

o Law of identity: P if and only if P
o Law of non-contradiction: not both P and not-P
o Law of excluded middle/ double negation elimination: either p or not-p. Not-not-p=p

Intuitionistic logic: well developed formal system that does not include law of extended middle

Dialethic logic: keeps law of extended middle but restricts law of non-contradiction

It seems strange to suppose that any set of randomly chosen sentences counts as at least a bad
argument/fallacious argument

Explanation is a form of reasoning that is broadly distinct from argument while often overlapping with it
o Sometimes casual describing prior conditions that caused some event
o Aims to rationalize/order reason/definitions/sort priorities according to principles of reasoning

Explanations are too open to an analogous problem of pseudo-explanation

UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENT FORMS

Sound argument has all true premises

Validity is a structural property of arguments

MODUS TOLLENS: to say this is a valid structure is to say that the choices of A&b&c. a&b come out true to
be able to guarantee c will come out true also
Arguments framed in categories are related
Hypothetical syllogism: premises seem clearly true so the argument is sound and proves conclusion as true.
Not a valid form for subjunctive conditionals.
Disjunctive syllogism: 1. P or Q
2. Not Q
Therefore,
3. P

Method for discovering if an argument is invalid: method of counter example. Thinking of scenarios that are
consistent with 1&2 but not 3
Constructive dilemma

1. P or Q
2. If P then R
3. If Q then S
Therefore,
4. R or S

Simplification: P&Q THEREFORE P

CONJUNCTION: 1. P 2. Q THEREFORE 3. P&Q
ADDITION: P THEREFORE P OR Q
Linked arguments: their premises tie together to support a single conclusion
Convergent argument: range of independent clauses which on a grounds for a conclusion assemble together
as premises
Sequential arguments: premises establish intermediate conclusion which serve as premises for some other
conclusion
Truth conditions: how things would have to be in order for the statement to be true
Arguments = valid/invalid and sound/unsound
Statements= true or false
Reasonable statement: one with sufficient evidence all things considered to render it acceptable in a given
state of information.
Statements only have one of two truth values
Even though the definition of soundness implicates truth rather than degrees of reasonableness the standards
for deductive reasoning remain relevant in our assessment of consequences of a set of beliefs
Contingent truthL things make have turned out different.
Necessary truth: things that would be no matter what happened.
Naturally if a premise of an argument is recognized to be true by definition this removes any concern
continuing its truth by investigating.
Possible that a claim equivocates between definitional and contingent status
Conditional statements are written with an if-then form. Antecedent= if consequent= then.
o Often when we used a conditional statement we intend to convey some sort of explanatory relation
between the A & C
DISTINCTION BETWEEN 2 KINDS OF CONDITONAL STATEMENTS

o Indicative conditionals: if P then Q

o Subjunctive conditional: id that were the case of P then that were the case of Q

Subjunctive conditionals are often used to express counter factuals

A compound and complex sentence can end up embodying many distinct factual claims each of which must
be evaluated if the statement is offered as a premise or conclusion.
CHAPTER 2

Deductive argument is a gold standard of reasoning. Deductive validity amounts to a guarantee of a true
conclusion given true premises. All info in the conclusion is presented in the premises.

Argument is cogent just in case it makes its conclusion rationally credible/rationally believable

Deductively sound arguments are fully cogent by these definitions: with true premises/ valid structure it
demonstrates the truth of its conclusion.

Logical fallacies: arguments presented as valid but which have invalid forms. Ex. Enthymemes.

Amplative arguments: some ampliative conclusions can be regarded as extremely likely in light of their
premises.
o Invalid ampliative argument: if the conclusion expresses some info not included in the premises
then it is a way for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

For a deductive argument the existence of the possibility alone is enough to scuttle the arguments validity. In
ampliative arguments we are concerned not just with the possibility that the conclusion is false but with the
probability its false.

Most important form of ampliative reasoning: INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT (draws conclusion about
unobserved cases from the premises of an observed case)

Success of evidential arguments varies by degree rather than be an all or nothing affair

Enumerative argument: argument based on counting off specific observed cases then drawing an inference
abut one/more unobserved cases

Inductive base: the larger the inductive base the stringer the argument for the conclusion

A. DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
o Satisfy/aim to satisfy definition of validity
o Do not strictly become more valid/more sound by degree
o If sound, remains sound no matter what other premises may be added.

B. INDUCTIVE REASONING
o Strictly deductively invalid being ampliative.
o Lends only a degree of support to their conclusion
o Are sensitive to subsequent info that may be added

Ampliative reasoning is defeasible: no matter how confident we may be in an argument in principle, it

remains possibly that some new information will weaken/overturn it

Arguing from indirect evidence reasoning based on implicit inductive evidence to the effect that people

Common interpretation of deductive + evidential arguments: valid argument form provides the general
outlines of argument while evidential reasoning is invoked to defend the premises

Inference to best explanation/ abductive reasoning:

o Modeled on inductive
o Abduction doesnt involve anything. Like more of the same judgment about unobserved cases
o Both common and in eliminable a crucial element of scientific reasoning
o Argument from analogy

Examining familiar/uncontroversial case noting a feature + arguing that some other case
is relevantly similar.

MILLS METHODS: identifying causes in complex circumstances. Useful in distinguishing between intuitive
cases and correlations
o Method of agreement

Only one factor in common between two situations in which another effect is observes;
reasonable to believe F causes E
o Method of difference:

E is observed in S1 but not S2 and the only relevant difference is that S1 has F, then it is
reasonable to conclude F causes E
o Joint method of agreement/disagreement:

In a range of situations E is present when and only when F is present. Reasonable to

believe F causes E
o Method of covariation:

If the degree to which E is observed is proportional to amount of F present it is

reasonable to conclude F is casually related to E
o Method of residues

G causes D but not E

Codify intuitions about cause and effect that are obvious in principle
Credibility: crucial fact about empirical beliefs is that new info can rationally require we revise them.
Defeasibility is a key feature of empirical beliefs.
Key feature of evidential reasoning: neutral state of info recognizing + conditioning our judgments
appropriately
Notion of proof= not univocal we need to distinguish deductive proof from inductive proof
As long as you stick to your conception of proof or the other then there is no principle reason to say one
cannot prove a negative claim
Ampliative/evidential: the conclusion expresses more info than in the premises
Critical thinking about evidence requires understand how one state of info can lend degrees of support to
come propositions including neutral degree of support

CHAPTER 3

What is asserted often goes well beyond the content of the sentences uttered?
o A reasonable audience will consider not just what was said but also the point of saying it.
o Good critical reasoning requires some reflection on the range of linguistic/extra-linguistic devices
implicated in the commission of reasoning errors

Performative purposes= resulting in accomplishment of some act rather than just describing it.

Commanding/questioning/asserting
o Different kinds of speech acts
o Preforming these linguistic acts is a matter of employing the appropriate kind of sentence

Constructing/analyzing arguments is largely a matter of making/identifying assertions that function as

premises/conclusions in the reasoning

Rhetorical questions:
o Often in arguments to function as premises
o Often best to think of it as an assertion
o Often framed rhetorically for a reason: effect of putting the premise in the form of a question is to
oblige audience to look for evidence against the claim/shift burden of truth.

Premise and conclusion can be implicit

Rhetorical questions= general way of indirectly setting out a premise/conclusion

Presupposition: enable fast/elegant communication that would be laborious to express

Rhetoric: study/use of effective communication of truth/accuracy/validity/soundness as ways of speaking

intended to persuade independently of the strength of the argument

One of the aims of critically analyzing arguments/assertions is to detect and diffuse rhetorical flourishes

Words are useful/legitimate especially when the context of use serves to partially refine the intended meaning

When vagueness is understood as imprecision weasel words can raise issues in critical thinking

Calling a predicate/concept vague can be a way of making technical observations of the puzzling logic that
characterizes the statements.

Important aspect of understanding vague language is distinguishing between being unable to say where a
difference lies

Calling a statement ambiguous might mean its only imprecise

Vagueness and ambiguity are common in normal speech

Syntactic ambiguity: occurs when sentence structure that can be read in more ways than one

Lexical ambiguity: multiple meanings for a single expression

o Subtle= polysemy
o 2 or more meanings = homonymy

Enthymeme: argument having implicit premises that are particularly significant because they are
implausible/invalid.

Every argument will have at least some basic assumptions unstated.

Obvious signs of distinction between premises

Conclusion= terms of entailment: words indicate speakers intent to draw inference

We consider more than the truth of premises but kinds of inferences characteristic of moral/ethical discourse.

Many fallacies in moral discourse are not unique to moral discourse: assessment of praise/blame often
subjected to fallacies of false dichotomy

TU QUOQUE FALLACY: distraction/relevance

Does the inability to prove moral statements from non moral statements somehow reflect badly on moral
claims?

Individual + comparative reasoning.

o Individual: once we factor out the nature of the problem + our interest
o Comparative: choosing between options available in a situation

Using video/pictorial evidence as factor for motivating public/political support for a conclusion

Arguments are communicated directly through explicit content of language and indirectly through
gesture/tone/imagery/rhetorical devices

By paying attention to these devices we can recognize arguments/parts that may not be obvious.
CHAPTER 4

Fallacies: mistakes in arguments that cluster into recognizable patterns. Forms of unreliable/unreasonable
argument
Any structurally invalid argument is a logical fallacy: premise foes not determine truth of conclusion.
Logical diagnosis of failure/inference
o Non sequite (doesnt follow)
o Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion
CONDTIONAL FALLACIES
o Denying the antecent/affirming the consequent

Explainable in terms of logical structures.

Test their validity w method of counter example

o Conditional premises tell us that the truth of its antecedent is sufficient for the truth of its
consequent
o Both these fallacies ignore the possibility that the consequent is true even though the antecedent is
false
SCOPE FALLACIES
o Quantifier scope fallacy: infers a specific statement from its unspecified version
o Consists of universal quantifier and existential quantifier resulting invalid inference
Argument from ignorance: lack of evidence that P therefore not P

Only sometimes an evidential fallacy. The quality of an argument from lack of evidence depends on how
informed we are how hard we have looked for evidence.

Argument from lack of evidence is reasonable when it can be framed in modus tollens argument:

Fallacy of appeal to vicarious authority: prof x said P therefore P

Standards for evaluating expert opinion:

o Relevant expertise
o Recent
o Reason to believe its expert knowledge
o Degree of consistency with broader expert opinion
Fallacy of appeal to popular opinion: everyone believes P therefore P
o Everyone might be wrong.
o Logically invalid
o As an evidential argument this one is stronger than case of single authority/popular opinion.
Begging the question/circle drain: 1.p 2. Q 3. R conclusion: q or p or r

Persuasive definition/slanting language, and a non sequitur.

o

At issue is whether someone who just picks up ammunition should be considered a "terrorist".

Moreover, the appeal to "common sense" is a red flag; it simply does not follow that one should kill
even a known enemy at every opportunity.

Straw man fallacy: Attacking an argument or view that ones opponent does not actually advocate.

Often the result of ignoring the principle of charity.

Deliberate or not, it is tempting to interpret ones opponent as having a position easier to refute than the
actual position

Ad hominem fallacy: Appealing to some trait of the arguer (usually a negative trait, real or perceived) as grounds to
reject their argument.
Counts as a fallacy when the alleged trait is strictly irrelevant to the arguments cogency.

If the arguer is offering one or more premises from personal authority, for example, it is not a fallacious ad
hominem to point out relevant facts about the arguer: e.g. a known tendency to lie, or demonstrated failures of
authority in the relevant domain.

The credibility of the speaker can be relevant to claims the speaker makes, but not to the validity of
the argument the speaker gives.
Ad hominem is often mistaken for mere insult.

In fact, the fallacy is committed when any mention is made of the arguer, including ostensibly positive
characteristics, but only when such mention is given instead of argument.

Ad hominem is just one species of genetic fallacy: the fallacy of focusing on the origins or source of an
argument or thing rather than the properties of the argument or thing itself.

Al Gore talks about global warming, but he lives in a big house that uses lots of electricity.
Therefore, global warming is a fib.

Saying bless you after someone sneezes originated from the belief that an evil spirit could enter
you after you sneeze. So, when you say that, you are being superstitious.

Ad hominem is often a species of argument by appeal to emotion: inferring an unwarranted conclusion under
the cover of premises that elicit strong emotions (e.g. fear, anger, patriotism, pride, etc.).

Fallacy of complex question: asking in a way that predetermines certain answers.

False dichotomy: assumption there are only 2 relevant possibilities.

Fallacies of relevance: introducing irrelevant factors to the real issue under discussion

Red herring: statements/objects that lead the discussion away from key points

Poisoning the well: general attack on reliability of an argument

Chapter 5

Data using numbers/numerical concepts to characterize things.

Careful/appropriate quantification of data can greatly assist our understanding of complex situations

Fundamental problems in this domain:

o Innumeracy
o Belief innumeracy is intellectually acceptable

To be unable to understand these claims is to be caught in a dilemma. Either trusts claims we framed in
mathematical terms we cannot evaluate ourselves or to generally reject them because we cannot evaluate
them.

Percentages used mostly as a way to consider ratios in common standard

problem is loss of info about
the data and loss of important contextualizing info

Danger in comparing percentages is hastily overlooking what the percent claims to mean

Non literal uses of percentages to emphasize errors on what is judges to be an easy task

Sometimes percentage claims are meaningful only if understood metaphorically

Used to express rates of change.

Linear projections: assumption of constant rates. Evidential fallacy that projects a constant rate into distant
features to unclear reasons.

Percentages are not scores

Percentile used to numerically rank values to how they compare to other values. Inherently comparative with
a group

Graphical fallacies.
CHAPTER 6

Representative sampling: a subset of a statistical population that accurately reflects the members of an entire
population

2 ways of getting unrepresentative sample: biased selection technique and unlucky

To rule out being unlucky

o Bigger sample size/ largest possible
o Qualifying out confidence in our conclusion according to the likelihood of getting unlucky with the
sample chosen

When we draw no n-deductive inferences from sets of data we can only ever be confident in the conclusion to
a degree.
o Significance: measure of confidence we are entitles to have in our probabilistic conclusion/function
of how precise a conclusion we are trying to draw.
o The more precise you want a conclusion to be the more data you need in order to have high
confidence in it

Margin of error: how precise the conclusion is to a degree of significance

o An amount allowed for in case of miscalculation or change in circumstance. Maximum expected
difference
o If the rest were repeated the results would always fall within the margin of error.

A set of data permits you to be confident to a degree in some statistical conclusion that is precise to a degree
understanding a statistical claim requires knowing both degrees. Using fixed standards of significance is the
most common way of simplifying interpretation of a statistical claim

Standard deviation: the average difference between data points and the mean. Reveals into about the
distribution of data points
o 2 distributions can be normal

Flatter curve has larger standard deviation

taller curve has smaller standard deviation

o low standard deviation means the data points are close to the mean.
o Expressed in same units as data.
o Used to measure confidence in statistical conclusions.
o Normal bell curves occur w symmetrical distribution of data points

2 broad kinds of mistakes in reasoning found in confidence levels

o 1. Type 1 errors: random result that looks significant
o type 2 errors: significant result that is dismissed as irrelevant or random.
o We can only reduce chances of theses errors by improving data, increasing odds of other type of
error

Setting a significance level before doing inference has advantage. That analyst isnt tempted to choose a cut
off

Significance level has the disadvantage of neglecting that some P values should be considered borderline.
Important to report p values when reporting results of a hypotheses.

Goal of probability theory: is to know how confident we can reasonably be about the truth of some
proposition given an incomplete state of information. People are not naturally good at recognizing how
various bits of info are relevant to truth of a proposition

Probability theory: analysis of random phenomena. Cannot predict precise results of a random event but if a
sequence of individual events are influenced by other factors it will exhibit certain patterns that can be
studied and predicted.

Probabilities: quantified from 0-1 (1=necessary)

Probability of an evert= P (e)

2 basic laws of probability:

o 0<p(e)<1

probability of any event has a value somewhere between 1&0

o where S is the ser of all possible outcomes p(s)=1

tells us that something happens and there are no outcomes outside of s

if s is not well defined than any probabilistic calculations you may perform using s are
perhaps meaningless


this rule makes it possible for basing reason on what will not occur
probability of an event: # of possible outcomes / total of possible outcomes
probability of both events occurring has 2 kinds of cases
o independent a&b (
o dependent a&b (a affected by b occurring)

truth conditions of conditional statements

o what makes for the truth of a sentence
o relevant in determining p & q
o dependence relation is not simple cause and effect. Dependence and conditional probability are a
matter of related probabilities not necessarily whether one factor causes another.
o Conditional probability: chances than an event will occur given another event

Likelihood of conjoint dependent events involves conditional probability.

CHAPTER 7

Perceptual bias: what we expect has an impact on what we believe we are experiencing
o A psychological tendency to lose objectivity in perception of people and situations
o People may believe that they are able to evaluate an event fairly but a number of biases interact
with the way they perceive events

Top down expectation bias: your perceptions are influenced by expectations/existing beliefs/cognitions. Often
occurs without conscious awareness influenced by context/motivation

Self-fulfilling prophecy: a prediction that directly/indirectly causes itself to become true by the very terms of
the prophecy itself due to positive feedback between belief and behavior.
o Process is biased in favor of confirmation rather than falsely believing the prediction was
confirmed owing to a bias

Expectation biasing judgment: case of confirmation bias. If you believe something then you are likely to treat
your neutral evidence as a confirmation of your beliefs.

Conflicting instances have a strong tendency to remind people of rule/theory/belief/prophecy. Over

interpreted in temporarily open-ended cases.

One of the reasons we are intuitively poor probabilistic reasons appears to be that we sometimes lapse into
reasoning from representative cases.

Framing effects
o Spin: the way a situation is described can have a powerful influence on judgments about it.

Repitions: important factor ranking a statement as true based on how often you have heard it.

Cognitive bias: systematic pattern of deviation from a norm/rationality in judgment where inferences about
other people/situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion. Individuals create their own subjective social
reality from their perception of imput.

Biases also have powerful effects at psychologically higher levels of processing

o Judgments about data
o Decisions about the weigh the evidence
o Behaviors in seeking evidence
o Judgments about data
o When you expect consciously or not some outcomes this can create a confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias: any tendency of thought/action that contributes to a salient propositions seeming more
warranted than it is. Confirmation of preexisting beliefs.

Biases towards evidence supporting a belief

o Disproportionate credence to evidence in support
o Supporting evidence is judged to be disproportionately significant even though there is other
evidence available
o Free pass to seemingly supportive evidences no cognitive effort to explore other options.
o Looking specifically for evidence to support your claim
o Info sources you choose can implement a powerful confirmation boas

Biases towards evidence undermining a belief

o Evidential neglect: bias against is hastily dismisses/disregarded
o Disproportional criticism. Subjecting opposing evidence to harsh and critical examination.
CHAPTER 8

Social cognition: sub-topics of psychology that focuses on how people process/store/apply information about
other people and social situations. Focuses on the role that cognitive processes play in our social interaction.
o The way we think about others plays a major role in how we think/feel/interact with the world
around us.

The existence of other people in a reasoning context/ the nature of our relationship with them apply to our
judgments and inferences in 2 broad ways
o Reasoning about other people
o Reasoning influenced by them
The number and kind of people around us are an enormous influence on our reasoning/ problem solving/
decision making skills
o A source of much of our info
o Much of our reasoning is about them
o Much of our reasoning about other things is affected by their presence.
Wide range of additional biases reasoning pitfalls associated
o Flow of the info through others can change how we see things unconsciously
o Reasoning about/ in presence of other people tends to be flawed in a predictable set of ways
Reasoning about other people
o Business/family/ recreation are all mediated by our relations with the people around us
o Understanding and predicting their behavior is a primary concern for our own happiness/success
o Judgment largely divided by simple/frequently inaccurate heuristics
o We need to self monitor unreliable forms of reasoning about other people
Key factors in unreliable social reasoning
o Optimistic assessment of ourselves
o Idealized oversimplified theorizing
o Overemphasis on character rather than content
Fundamental attribution error: the tendency for people to place undue emphasis on internal characteristic
(personality) to explain someones behavior in a situation rather than considering the situations external
factors.
o Dont be misled by first impressions.
o Overlooks a range of situational factorys
o Causes inefficient tension between people for no reason
Optimistic self-assessment: when reasoning about oneself we tend to recognize our strong qualities rather
than our flaws.
False polarization effect: overestimating the differences between ones own view and the view of someone
who disagrees by interpreting the other persons view as closer to the polar opposite than it is
o We flatter ourselves that our particular position on a issue is distinguished from other
o Assimilate our opponents reasoning
o Not only does it misrepresent the specific content of others views it also systematically
overestimates separation between opposing views
Fallacy related to false polarization: biased definition + biased interpretation of evidence confirms our
preexisting idea that we are centrist/reasonable even when false. As long as someone disagrees with you can
overinterpret their dissent to represent everyone on the other side
Bandwagon effect: psychological phenomenon whereby people do something primarily because other people
are doing it. When most people in a group are in agreement it is much more difficult to hold a dissenting view
False consensus effect: overestimating the extent to which others share ones perception of a situation.
Taking silence as an agreement
Debiasing strategies
o Make a habit of considering reasons why those who havent committed to your belief might agree
o Create an environment in which voicing dissent is allowed
Flow of info through groups
o Info we receive requires sensitivity to the effects of the transmitting medium of the into.
o Leveling + sharpening: jointly used to shape the message
o Leveling: elements of a narrative/message that are supporting details and get minimized
o Sharpening: point of the message that is perceived as central is emphasized.
o We convey messages by understanding their main point
Coverage: property of a social context regarding some particular claim that makes it reasonable for you to
reject the claim youd already know if it were true

CHAPTER 9

Context of inquiry in which the prospect for momentary individual error is factored out by requirement
of repeatability

Science: a ser of discipline specific methods that bear a broad family resemblance and an appropriate set
of attitudes.
Hallmarks of pseudo-science:
o Imperviousness to countervailing evidence especially a refusal to specify in advance what data
would count as probability lowering
o Folk plausibility (intuitive ideas)
o Spread of crack-pottery
o Frequently requires posting a conspiracy theory
o Critical thinking about science: its practices popular representation and publication

CHAPTER 10

Mainstream media is another form of information that is far less governed by truth-preserving norms

All kinds of media is subject to many powerful norms distinct from those of accuracy/relevance

Interaction of public biases with commercial motivations of news media

o Emphasis on celeb news
o Appealing to preconceptions
o Minimalizing events in areas of which the audience is ignorant
o Indulging desires to be thrilled by sex/violence/fear

Personal biases in media @ editorial and ownership levels (choosing content to be released)

Advertisers aims play a powerful role in the thinking of owners and editors

Profit motive selects for homogenous fact gathering

Frivolous reporting masking for real journalism

Competence issues: science/politics/ law/history are often complex matters that journalists arent prepared to
summarize

Plurality of media sources/viewpoints seems as likely to enable the selection of homogenous sources as to
encourage broad opinion.