PrepTest 152

This answer choice is trying to get you to think that the newspaper in question is better than other newspapers, since it publishes at least some reviews of plays. However, we don't know if these other newspapers even post reviews, thus making them a bad point of comparison! And even if this newspaper is less biased than others, it could still be biased.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
The author accuses a newspaper of bias towards movies and against plays because of the relative frequency of reviews of the former versus the latter.

Answer Anticipation:
When the author of an argument settles on an explanation for a phenomenon, it's worthwhile to think about other possible explanations. Sure, more reviews of movies could mean a bias, but it could also mean that there are more movies to review, or a budget that only allows the reviewer to attend a few plays versus many more movies. Additionally, any argument that mentions frequency ("fives times as many") should consider the total number of occurrences. The focus on frequency here suggests that the first of our alternative explanations is likely to be the correct answer, since it deals with the total number of occurrences.

Answer Explanation:
This answer gets at the frequency explanation. It weakens the author's explanation that the more frequent movie reviews is due to bias by suggesting it's due to more frequent movie releases.

Key Takeaway:
When the author provides an explanation for a phenomenon in a Weaken question, look for alternative explanations. When the argument deals with frequency, looks for answers that deal with the total overall number of occurrences. That frequency vs. total error in reasoning (also often seen as percents vs. amounts) recurs.

Well played, LSAT. This is a tempting trap answer. One might think that more movie reviewers serves as an alternative explanation for more movie reviews. However, having hired five movie reviewers by itself might suggest a bias, so this answer doesn't put forward an explanation that is at odds with the author's, and thus it doesn't weaken the conclusion.

Great, so there's not enough room to review everything. This doesn't affect the author's view that, with the limited space available, the newspaper doesn't display bias by selecting primarily movies to review over plays.

Even if the newspaper is less biased towards movies this year by including more reviews of plays, it doesn't mean that it doesn't still display a lamentable amount of bias against plays overall. Also, reviewing more plays doesn't mean that the ratio of movies to plays has decreased—maybe the ratio has always been 5:1, and they reviewed fewer plays in previous years.