PrepTest 140

Incorrect. There's no analogy mentioned in the stimulus—the topic sticks to things relevant to newspaper costs.

Incorrect. There's no historically accepted approach mentioned. The stimulus is about trends in a certain business, not methods used in that business.

Incorrect. There's no newly developed method discussed. The stimulus is about trends in a certain business, not methods used in that business.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Newspapers blame cost for their falling profits, but costs haven't increased compared to inflation. Therefore, falling circulation and ad revenue is the real explanation.

Answer Anticipation:
The Accountant disputes an explanation raised by the newspapers themselves in order to bring up an alternative explanation. Two things to note. First, the reasoning in dismissing the initial explanation is based on economic data, which may be mentioned in the answer choice. Second, there's no reason given to support the alternative explanations other than the ruling out of the opposing point's explanation—so the answer choice should rely on just the elimination of an opposing explanation in explaining how the argument supports its conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
The Accountant challenges the explanation given by the newspaper industry (rising costs) in order to introduce a different explanation (falling circulation and advertising).

Key Takeaway:
Each of the incorrect answers here reflects a common method of reasoning that has appeared many times on the LSAT. These repeated methods of reasoning and the abstract answers that describe them can be studied in order to improve speed and accuracy on this question type.

Incorrect. This answer brings up a version of reductio ad absurdum—using the same logic to reach an unacceptable conclusion—which isn't present here. The stimulus doesn't mention a practice, but rather a business trend.