PrepTest 104, Section 4, Question 19
Most people feel that they are being confused(71 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(16 more words not shown)
- AIt is not(21 more words not shown)
- BPoor organization of(12 more words not shown)
- CBeing exposed to(17 more words not shown)
- DMost people can(7 more words not shown)
- ESome people are(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Those are two possible explanations. Are they the only two?
The author suggests that people feel confused because news arrives too quickly or is poorly organized. Then an analysis suggests that a typical story contains less information than people can handle. The author uses that to set aside the first explanation and settle on poor organization.
But ruling out one possibility doesn't establish the other unless we've ruled out the alternatives. What if reports contradict one another? Or what if past inconsistencies have made people unsure what to trust? Those are possible explanations to investigate, not facts we're adding to the passage. They show why “it could be one of these two things” isn't yet “it must be one of these two things.”
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an assumption the argument requires. I'd look for something excluding another possible source of confusion. It could say that the two explanations exhaust the possibilities, or it could rule out one particular competing explanation. We don't need a new fact that independently proves the whole conclusion.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Perhaps the problem is the number of stories. Each one could contain a manageable amount of information, yet following seven different stories could leave someone confused by the total. Testing the density of one typical story would not rule that out.
The author needs to exclude that competing explanation to conclude that poor organization is responsible. A does so. This fits our prediction of an answer ruling out another possibility; the specific distinction between information within one story and the number of stories becomes clear here.
- B
Poor organization could make information harder to understand without making understanding impossible. Think of a badly written paragraph that takes extra work to follow. The argument doesn't require the much stronger claim that poor organization always prevents comprehension. It is explaining a feeling of confusion, not establishing total impossibility.
- C
We don't need to know whether watching additional stories would help. More exposure might clarify something or might add to the confusion; neither result must be accepted to make this argument. C offers a possible effect of additional news, not the required exclusion of a competing cause.
- D
What matters is the comparison between the stories' information density and the audience's capacity. The premise already says the typical story is below that capacity. The capacity itself need not count as “very high.” Even a modest limit could exceed what a particular story contains.
- E
Some people might be overwhelmed by too much information, but the author doesn't need that to be true. The conclusion attributes the reported confusion to organization. It doesn't depend on establishing that anyone is suffering from an excessive quantity of information.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 4Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 3, Question 7Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 4, Question 7Sufficient Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.