PrepTest 104

[lcid:3515] Prep Test 104 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

All any reporter knows Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Errors in Reasoning Questions / Sufficient & Necessary Questions

Stimulus Summary

Generalization - The reporters only know about the accident what they were told by the press agent.
Chain - Press agent told everyone everything → ~Reporter has a scoop
Pivot - ~Press agent told everyone everything
Conclusion - Reporter has a scoop

Answer Anticipation

Wow, that’s a mess of a stimulus. However, there’s a lot of conditional logic, so we should anticipate a Sufficient/Necessary flaw.
The stimulus opens with a generalization - reporters don’t know anything about the accident other than what the press agent told them. Great - there’s no outside information.
From there, we end up with a long conditional chain that we shortened to just the endpoints. After that, the argument pivots (“However”) and establishes that the sufficient condition of the chain isn’t met. From that, it concludes that the necessary isn’t, either.
That’s an illegal negation. However, the question stem is phrased in a particular manner - it asks us to find something that the argument doesn’t consider but is consistent with the facts.
So what can we anticipate in light of that? Well, starting with the conclusion, a reporter having a scoop would mean that they know something the other reporters don’t. And we also know that the reporters don’t know anything other than what the press agent told them.
So does the relevant premise - the pivot statement, which is really the only premise of the argument here since the argument pivots away from the earlier statements - establish that someone knows something others don’t? Nope - it establishes that the press agent hasn’t told every reporter everything. It could be that she told all the reporters the same incomplete information!
So it’s compatible with the premises of the argument that no reporter has information that other reporters lack, and yet the argument concludes that at least one of the reporters has such information. Let’s find an answer reflecting that possibility - that no reporter knows info that other reporters don’t.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The press agent did Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    This answer is compatible with the argument, but it’s also compatible with the conclusion. Even if the press agent held back something from all the reporters, she may have given one reporter exclusive information she didn’t share with others.

  2. B
    Even if some reporter Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The conclusion is that a reporter “can” scoop the others, not that they will, so this answer is incorrect.

  3. C
    Some reporter may have Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    This answer is compatible with the premises, but it’s also compatible with the conclusion. That reporter could have shared one piece of information with the rest, but held back another piece of information they could use as the basis for a scoop.

  4. D
    The press agent may Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    This answer is compatible with both the premises and conclusion - the most knowledgeable reporter and press agent could both know a piece of information that no other reporter knows, thus allowing for a scoop.

  5. E
    No reporter knows any Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    This answer is compatible with the premises, but not with the conclusion. If the press agent told every reporter the same incomplete information, then no reporter would know any more about the accident than any other reporter. And since the reporters only know what the press agent told them, then no reporter would have unique information, and thus no reporter would have a scoop, as the conclusion claims. Since this answer brings up something that’s compatible with the premises but not the conclusion, it highlights a flaw in the argument’s reasoning, so it’s correct.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion