Logical reasoning PrepTest 136 · Section 2 · Question 15

Incorrect. While this doesn't state the same thing as the conclusion, and it's not necessary for it to work, it does align with the conclusion that cynicism doesn't hurt society, so it's not something the argument overlooks.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't address whether the cynicism is bad or good for society, and it doesn't relate the history of journalistic cynicism to any effect it has on society today, so it's out of scope.

Incorrect. Whether or not the cynicism is genuine is out of scope, especially since it's not noted if earlier journalists shared that disingenuous cynicism.

Incorrect. The argument is about whether this depiction has a negative impact on society, not whether it is accurate, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Social critics - Journalistic cynicism hurts society
Rebuttal - Journalists have always been cynical. If anything, they're less cynical today.
Conclusion - Journalistic cynicism doesn't hurt society.

Answer Anticipation:
The Commentator here rebuts the claim made by social critics, calling it absurd, so we should rephrase that conclusion to state the substance of it—journalistic cynicism doesn't hurt society.

Why does the Commentator believe that? Because journalists have always been cynical and, if anything, that cynicism is at a low point now.

But that's making a huge assumption—that this cynicism also hasn't always hurt society. If the past is marked by societal harm caused by journalistic cynicism, then the Commentator's argument falls apart.

This argument relies on a comparison between modern and past journalists, establishing one thing is true about both of them to reach a conclusion that something else is true of one group of them. However, it never establishes that that other thing—a lack of societal harm—has been true in the past. Let's find an answer stating that the argument overlooks the possibility that this cynicism has always had a negative effect on society.

Answer Explanation:
This answer points out the flaw in the argument by bringing up the possibility it overlooks. The argument uses the history of journalism and the prevalence of cynicism throughout it to show that modern journalists can't hurt society through their cynicism. But if journalists have always hurt society with their cynicism, the argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
When the question stem asks you to point out an error in reasoning by highlighting a possibility the argument overlooks, find an answer that would undermine the argument. It's only a flaw to overlook a possibility that would hurt your argument—not hurt it or have no effect on it whatsoever.