Passage Summary: A sociologist argues that we shouldn't believe there's a lot of violent crime just because it's always in the news; they claim that because news focuses on rare events, the high volume of stories actually suggests that crime is infrequent.

Conclusion: The sociologist concludes that the assertion that violent crime is widespread in society is incorrect.

Reasoning: The argument states that the belief in high crime rates stems from frequent media coverage, but this coverage exists precisely because such crimes are unusual and therefore newsworthy.

Analysis: This argument suffers from a classic case of circular reasoning, or 'begging the question.' The sociologist attempts to disprove the existence of frequent violent crime by presupposing that these crimes are 'very rare occurrences' to explain the media's behavior. It is a bit like a chef claiming their food isn't salty by arguing that the only reason people are reaching for the salt shaker is because the food is so perfectly seasoned. Look for an answer choice that points out how the argument takes for granted the very thing it sets out to establish, or one that identifies the sociologist's reliance on a premise that is essentially the same as the conclusion.