SAT Official Guide Questions!!! Help!!!

<p>This question is from OG, practice test 4, section 8.
Here is the Q.
---------------------------------------–------------</p>

<ol>
<li>The author responds to the four theories Of television primarily by
A. Offering contrary evidence
B. Invoking diverse authorities
C. Adding historical perspective
D. Blurring the line between the manipulator and the manipulated
E. implying that no reasonable person could take them seriously</li>
</ol>

<hr>

<p>I searched this question on Google and found a Thread about this question posted earlier, but I don't understand why D is false, which is my choice. </p>

<p>I think the author is completely blurring the lines between the manipulator and manipulated, which choice D suggested, when he point out that the theorists themselves may watch TV and can still 'distinguish in a sovereign manner between deception and reality, and enjoys complete immunity in the face of the idiocy that he or she sorrowfully diagnoses the rest of us'. In the sense, the theorists themselves are the 'manipulated', while on the contrary, they propagate the notorious effect of television and influence the 'the veterans of televised election campaigns', who are the "manipulator", to espouse their claim.(Given that of course these politicians watch TV, they are, therefore, manipulated at the same time. )
So, why can't I say that the theorists and the politicians are both the manipulator and the manipulated? And why the author is not Blurring the Lines to refute the theorists? </p>

<p>Sorry for these bla bla bla.....but I am really puzzled ......</p>

<p>My sense is that you're over-thinking the passage and the question, and as a result you're adding your interpretation of the passage to the much simpler and very direct voice of the author.</p>

<p>The author never says B. If he did it would be explicit, as for example a statement like "the theorists are themselves being manipulated". But in fact his thesis is that the theories are silly theories about the viewers. His point is that the viewers know exactly what they are seeing. They can tell the difference between the reality of the world and the reality of television. No one is being manipulated.</p>

<p>The authors statement: "Or could – fatal loophole in the dilemma – the theorists themselves be symptoms of a universal stupefaction?" is a form of exaggeration/humor. His voice is one of saying "that can't possibly be true". They're not idiots.</p>

<p>Look further. The author states "all these theories are unconvincing" etc. That's choice E!!!</p>

<p>Avoid the common error is SAT CR of interpreting the "voice" of the author. Simply take it for what it is.</p>

<p>^ You wouldn't get any advice better than that.</p>

<p>Got'cha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Great thanks!!!!!!!!!!!</p>

<p>Certainly! :)</p>