PrepTest 104, Section 4, Question 25
All any reporter knows about the accident is(78 more words not shown)
The argument's reasoning is flawed(20 more words not shown)
- AThe press agent(10 more words not shown)
- BEven if some(20 more words not shown)
- CSome reporter may(16 more words not shown)
- DThe press agent(13 more words not shown)
- ENo reporter knows(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if every reporter got the same incomplete account?
Imagine the press agent gave everyone the same 75 percent of the facts and withheld the rest. The agent didn't tell every reporter everything. But nobody has an information advantage over anyone else. Incomplete information doesn't have to be unequal information.
That is the distinction the argument misses. It gives one way to ensure equal knowledge: tell everybody everything. Then it says that didn't happen and concludes that one reporter can scoop all the others. We haven't established that a uniquely informed reporter exists at all.
“Scoop” means getting a story ahead of the other reporters. I might initially wonder whether someone could simply publish faster, but the argument gives us a rule to accept: if nobody knows more than anyone else, nobody can scoop all the others. The equal-but-incomplete example works within that rule. We don't need to dispute it.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks for a possibility consistent with the facts that the argument overlooks. My prediction is that every reporter could still know the same things, despite none receiving the complete story.
Working the answers
- A
Nobody receiving the entire story is compatible with the passage, but it doesn't by itself establish the equality that defeats the conclusion. One reporter could receive 90 percent of the information while the others receive only 50 percent. No one would know everything, but someone could still have an advantage.
Also, the premise says the agent didn't tell every reporter everything; it doesn't say the agent told no reporter everything. A is stronger than that premise. Either way, the useful missing point is equal knowledge, which E supplies directly.
- B
Having the ability to scoop others doesn't mean being required to do it. A reporter could know more and choose not to publish. The conclusion says someone can scoop the others, so an answer about what that reporter need not do doesn't show the ability is absent.
- C
Sharing one piece of information doesn't establish that everyone ends up with equal knowledge. The reporter might still keep other exclusive facts, or another reporter might know something the rest don't. C gives a possible shared detail without establishing the equality of information that would block the conclusion.
- D
This compares the press agent with the most knowledgeable reporter. We need a comparison among the reporters themselves. The agent and one reporter could know the same amount while the remaining reporters know less. D doesn't rule out the advantage the conclusion needs.
- ECorrect
Everyone could know the same things without knowing everything. That is exactly what happens in the shared, incomplete-account example.
E is consistent with the agent's not telling every reporter the whole story. And under the argument's own rule, equal knowledge means no reporter can scoop all the others. The premises can therefore hold while the conclusion fails.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.