Logical reasoning PrepTest 153 · Section 3 · Question 5

Incorrect. That's a value judgement this stimulus didn't make. The author could still potentially believe that there are more upsides than downsides to the information age!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Various forms of new and old media are now fighting over the same limited pool of attention and money, so journalistic standards have slipped. As a result, there's an increasing amount of fake news and clickbait.

Answer Anticipation:
The second sentence is the conclusion here. BECAUSE of competition, journalistic standards have slipped, and BECAUSE of lower standards, erroneous and insignificant information is increasingly being shown to consumers. Expect a paraphrase of the second sentence.

Answer Explanation:
Yes, this is an accurate paraphrase of the second sentence of the stimulus. "More and more" matches "increasingly" and "insignificant and unreliable" matches "inaccurate and trivial."

Key Takeaway:
Students tend to miss Main Point questions by getting psyched out by the test and second-guessing themselves. Find the conclusion the same way you would if you were doing a Strengthen or Weaken question, then double check to make sure it doesn't support anything else in the stimulus. Lastly, look for a paraphrase in the answer choices. It's not always a trick question . . . sometimes they just want to see you find a conclusion.

Incorrect. This is a premise of the argument found in the first sentence. You can tell because it makes sense to say "there's more fake news BECAUSE journalistic standards have slipped," but it makes no sense to say "journalistic standards have slipped BECAUSE of the increase in fake news." You can't have an increase in inaccurate/trivial information and have high journalistic standards!

Incorrect. This is more like a MBT answer for this argument, but it isn't the main point, because the stimulus doesn't say this explicitly. A MP answer will always be already present in the stimulus.

Incorrect. This is a prediction about the future, always suspicious on the LSAT, and wrong in this case because the stimulus didn't go that far. The author just called out what's happening now. They didn't say anything about what would happen if . . . .