Logical reasoning PrepTest 154 · Section 4 · Question 5

Incorrect. This doesn't matter if, in the aggregate, both groups of subscribers feel about equally uninformed. It isn't about how many people are informed in all, it's about the strange occurrence that which paper you subscribe to doesn't seem to affect how informed you feel.

Incorrect. This answer contains a temporal fallacy. What happened in the past is not relevant to the facts stated about subscribers to newspapers that cover election issues currently.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Valid or Flawed:
N/A

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Voters often feel they are not informed enough about issues relevant to an upcoming election. This is equally true both of people who subscribe to newspapers with in-depth election issues coverage and subscribers to newspapers with little to no coverage of election issues.

Answer Anticipation:
In a Paradox question, we're looking to add a premise that turns the unexpected into the obvious. So, start with figuring out what would be expected: in this case, we'd expect subscribers to the in-depth election coverage papers to be more informed than people who only read tabloids full of celeb gossip. Now, ask yourself why that might not happen? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the word "subscribers." Subscribing to something doesn't mean you use it actively (looking at you, everyone who has 16 streaming TV services but only watches HBO and Netflix). So maybe these newspaper subscribers aren't actually reading all that great election issues coverage.

Answer Explanation:
This matches our anticipation exactly. Being a subscriber doesn't equal being a reader of the in-depth election issues coverage. Maybe the serious paper subscribers all just read the sports section, which would leave them about as informed regarding upcoming election issues as the tabloid subscribers.

Key Takeaway:
When an LSAT question tells you something about a specific group or groups of people, trap answers that try to get you to slip outside of the scope of the question are common. Remember, if we're trying to figure out what's going on with the fast food habits of, say, vegan clergy members in Philadelphia, it's unlikely that anything along the lines of "Most people eat fast food tacos . . . " will apply. When trying to infer something about a narrow and clearly defined group, only answer choices applicable to that particular sample should be interesting to you.

Incorrect. This is outside of the scope of the question. We're trying to explain an unexpected similarity between two groups who do subscribe.

Incorrect. Probably the most tempting trap in this set, but it's also irrelevant to the unexpected occurrence in the stimulus. You'd expect at least some difference between these two specific groups of people who do make the choice to subscribe to newspapers, even if the public as a whole is not very interested in newspapers anymore.