Logical reasoning PrepTest 145 · Section 2 · Question 22

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Premise Ð There are at least 2 sides to every story
Premise for IC 1 Ð All sides of an important story should be covered
Premise for IC 2 Ð No newspaper covers all sides of all stories
Intermediate conclusion Ð Some important stories not adequately covered
Therefore Ð Everyone should have access to multiple newspapers

Answer Anticipation:
This question is a bit of an annoying one, as there is a much more obvious flaw to it than the one that ends up leading to the correct answer, and the more common one has a trap answer that's really well phrased.

The easier-to-spot flaw here relates to the conclusion—it recommends that everyone should have access to more than one paper. Why? So they have a chance at getting all sides of important stories. However, the argument never establishes that it's important that people have access to all sides of important stories, or that they can't get them from locations other than newspapers. That jump is a definite flaw in this argument, but it doesn't get us to a correct answer—and it might cause us to fall for answer choice (C) (see the explanation to see why that answer is wrong).

If you didn't spot another flaw, that's fine! Sometimes, we don't see any flaw, or we don't see the right flaw. Stay flexible when reading through answers and consider each one.

If you were eagle-eyed while approaching this stimulus, you may have noticed a key shift in a part of the argument. Looking at the lead-up to the intermediate conclusion, the first premise is about important stories and the IC is about important stories...but the second premise is about all stories. That leaves open the possibility that newspapers don't cover all sides of all stories, but they do cover all sides of important stories. This jump does lead us to the correct answer (though it also has a trap answer associated with it).

Answer Explanation:
This argument features the unbelievably subtle term shift between the parts of the argument that lead into the intermediate conclusion. It relies on no newspaper covering all sides of all stories to reach a conclusion that the newspapers don't cover all sides of the important stories. It's possible that, while the newspapers don't cover all sides of small stories, they always get all sides of the important ones.

Key Takeaway:
The people who write the LSAT are very good at their jobs. When they write trap answers, they do so knowing exactly what flawed thinking will be going on in your head while you read the stimulus. While the Anticipation step is important, and you should rely on your anticipations, it's also important to stay flexible and consider answers that don't conform to it if they sound relevant to what happened in the stimulus.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't overlook this because it says that everyone should have access to more than one newspaper. It also doesn't claim that this will solve the problem, just that it's the minimum needed to guarantee the problem might be solved.

Incorrect. This answer can be very tempting because the argument does jump from a statement about newspaper coverage to a conclusion about what should be done. However, this answer states that it jumps to a conclusion about what newspapers should do, and the conclusion is about what people should have access to. That's not about what the newspapers do—that's about the newspaper market. A very well done trap answer here. You have to tip your hat to the LSAT when it does such a good job at tricking us—and then learn from it. This reinforces an important lesson—always pay attention to the group being discussed, which would lead you here to see that the group in the answer isn't the same as the group in the conclusion.

Incorrect. If anything, the argument assumes the opposite in stating that people should have access to more than one newspaper. If that were already true, making an argument supporting it wouldn't make much sense.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't concern itself with just important stories—the big issue actually was that it jumped between discussing important stories and all stories. It also had a separate premise about all stories having at least two sides.