Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 4 · Question 9

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
TV vs. Newspaper:
(1) TV provides a sense of direct involvement in stories
(2) Newspapers provide depth of coverage to highlight significance
Complete understanding → Appreciation of significance AND Sense of direct involvement
People don't get news outside of TV and newspapers
Therefore - Most people not Complete understanding

Answer Anticipation:
This argument starts by comparing TV and newspaper news coverage, showing that each has a characteristic the other lacks. It then moves on to providing a conditional that brings up necessary conditions ("requires both") for one to completely understand a news story.

Looking at that conditional, the necessary conditions are related to the characteristics of TV and newspapers. Each of those sources provides one of the necessary conditions, but not the other, so anyone who relies on just one of them will not have a complete understanding of a story. Since the argument also establishes that few people get news from other sources, they're not getting a depth of understanding or a sense of direct involvement from there.

However, the argument fails to establish that most people don't use both sources, instead assuming that that's the case. That leaves open the possibility that most people do look to both sources, and thus have the necessary depth and involvement to completely understand a story.

Let's find an answer that highlights the argument's assumption that people don't consult both of these sources.

Answer Explanation:
The conclusion assumes that people don't consult both TV and newspapers for their news. So it treats two things (TV and newspapers) as being mutually exclusive (people don't consult both) even though they can't be seen to exclude the other (there's no reason that someone who watches TV can't also read a newspaper, and vice versa). This answer describes the flaw in the argument, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever you're framing your understanding of an argument's reasoning or assumption using language that means "not both," you're thinking about things that are being treated as mutually exclusive. This is a common concept that the LSAT brings up in argument, so you should expect the answer to use that (or very similar) language.

Incorrect. The reason that people watch TV/read newspapers is immaterial—what matters is the impact that these sources have on them. Since the stimulus doesn't establish the reason behind consulting them as relevant to whether they get certain information from them, this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The stimulus provides enough information to know what it means when it says "depth of coverage"—enough information to understand the significance of events.

Incorrect. The argument is over whether people fully understand current events, not whether that's a good thing. This answer would be more relevant if the argument concluded that people should consult both TV and newspapers, or that it would be a good thing if they did.

Incorrect. The argument concludes that most people don't have a full understanding of current events, because they lack direct involvement or understanding of the significance of events. That doesn't assume that newspapers and TV succeed in providing these to people, as the argument relies on them not having these things!