PrepTest 109, Section 4, Question 9
Television news coverage gives viewers a sense of(80 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(5 more words not shown)
- Atreats two things,(18 more words not shown)
- Bignores the possibility(18 more words not shown)
- Cmakes crucial use(9 more words not shown)
- Dfails to consider(15 more words not shown)
- Emistakenly reasons that(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why not read the newspaper and watch the news?
Television provides the feeling of direct involvement; newspapers provide the depth needed to appreciate significance. If a full understanding requires both, using both sources seems like an obvious possibility to check. A person could watch a report to see events unfold and read about the same events for more detail.
The author instead treats each source's limitation as a limitation its users can't overcome. Few people go beyond television and newspapers, so few people supposedly get everything they need. But staying within those two sources doesn't mean choosing only one of them.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'd predict that the author overlooks people using both. That doesn't prove those people fully understand every event. It does challenge the reason offered for thinking they must be missing one of the required ingredients.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
“Mutually exclusive” means that doing one rules out doing the other. Reading newspapers doesn't prevent someone from watching television, and watching television doesn't prevent reading.
The argument needs to consider their combined contributions. Television's lack of depth doesn't establish that its viewers lack depth if they also read newspapers. Newspapers' lack of direct involvement doesn't establish that their readers lack that experience if they also watch television. The conclusion ignores that possible combination.
- B
A person's reason for consuming the news isn't the issue. Someone might watch for entertainment or to have something to discuss with friends and still gain information from it. The argument is about what the sources provide, not whether the audience's goal is a full understanding.
- C
We can understand the relevant contrast without a formal definition: depth provides enough detail to appreciate significance, while the television coverage doesn't. Defining that phrase more precisely wouldn't fix the overlooked possibility of using both sources. An undefined term isn't automatically the flaw.
- D
Feeling involved in a tragic event could be upsetting. But the passage is asking what people need for understanding, not whether that understanding is pleasant. A possible emotional cost doesn't explain the author's conclusion that few people have both required elements.
- E
The author doesn't argue that because a source could produce full understanding, it actually does. The reasoning goes the other way: each source lacks a required ingredient, so the author assumes users lack a full understanding. The error is overlooking their combination, not treating a mere capacity as an achieved result.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.