Logical reasoning PrepTest 146 · Section 1 · Question 25

Incorrect. Without connecting pay to fact-checking, this answer is out of scope—especially since it's possible that the biggest competitors overpay their staff.

Incorrect. While this does highlight a difference between the publications, there's no indication that the length a paper has been in business is related to how it deals with factual errors, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
The GS hired a bunch of editors to catch errors, but they run more corrections than their biggest competitor, so it didn't work.

Answer Anticipation:
There are two issues with this argument, both of which fall into a pattern.

First, the argument relies on a comparison between the GS and its biggest competitor, using the higher rate of corrections in the GS to reach a conclusion that they have many factual errors. However, it's possible that the competitor just doesn't care so they run no corrections despite many factual inaccuracies. This or any other relevant difference between the two newspapers would call the argument into question.

Second, ignoring that first flaw, the argument takes a look at a solution to a problem and concludes it doesn't work because that solution didn't completely solve the problem. That's a common argument on the LSAT, and the issue is that it doesn't measure against what was the case without the solution. It's possible that the newspaper hired these editors and saw their rate of factual errors drop precipitously—just not all the way. That would highlight a solution that's working even if there's still more work to be done. Any answer pointing out that errors were higher before the editors were brought on, or that they'd be higher without these editors, will also serve to weaken this argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights a relevant difference that calls into question whether the comparison to the other newspaper suggests that the Gazette-Standard is more error-prone. If the GS is better about actually addressing factual errors, then they might run more corrections despite having fewer errors.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument relies on a comparison, the correct answer to a Weaken question tends to itself bring up a relevant comparison.

Incorrect. If the GS is running its articles by more editors than the competition and still needing to publish more corrections, that, if anything, strengthens the argument that hiring more editors didn't work.

Incorrect. This answer would only weaken the argument in presenting an alternative cause if it were definitively the case that fewer reporters would lead to more factual errors that would need to be caught. However, it's possible that fewer reporters actually make it easier to catch the errors—either because there are fewer articles being written or the fired reporters were the ones including the errors in the first place.