PrepTest 120, Section 3, Question 16
In the last election, 89 percent of reporters(45 more words not shown)
The argument is logically most(8 more words not shown)
- Apresumes, without providing(10 more words not shown)
- Bignores the possibility(18 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes, without providing(15 more words not shown)
- Dignores the possibility(16 more words not shown)
- Eignores the possibility(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the challenger deserved more negative coverage?
The voting figure doesn't settle how reporters did their jobs. An incumbent might be extremely popular, or reporters might prefer that candidate personally while still reporting accurately. The author needs more than the fact that 89 percent voted the same way to establish that their preference shaped the news.
Then we get the coverage figures: 54 percent negative for the challenger, versus 30 percent for the incumbent. That is an imbalance. But imagine one candidate whose conduct keeps producing genuine scandals and another with far fewer newsworthy problems. Fair coverage could be much more negative toward the first candidate. Equal treatment doesn't require pretending the facts are equal.
What we’re looking for
Audience demand is another possible influence: a news organization might choose stories because viewers want them, rather than because reporters prefer a candidate. For the flaw question, though, my strongest objection is the simpler one: the argument hasn't checked whether the difference in negative coverage was warranted by the news itself.
Working the answers
- A
The argument compares percentages of each candidate's coverage, so it needn't assume equal total amounts. A candidate receiving many stories and a candidate receiving fewer stories can still have different percentages of negative coverage. The issue is why those proportions differ, not whether the totals match.
- BCorrect
The challenger may simply have generated more negative news worth reporting. That gives an explanation for the coverage difference without attributing it to reporters' personal preferences. It matches the imagined contrast between a candidate involved in repeated scandals and one with fewer such stories. The author hasn't ruled out that the imbalance reflects the candidates' conduct.
- C
The conclusion is that personal biases affected coverage, not that bias always damages coverage. Even someone who thought bias could sometimes have a beneficial effect would still need evidence to establish that it operated here. C attributes a broader value judgment to the author than the argument requires.
- D
Whether coverage changes voters' behavior is a further question. Reporters could allow their preferences to affect stories even if nobody changed a vote as a result. The argument is trying to establish an influence on the reporting, not an influence on the election outcome.
- E
Fear of losing access could provide a reason to favor an incumbent in coverage. That doesn't show the imbalance was warranted by the underlying news. Although this proposes another possible motive, it leaves room for reporting shaped by favoritism rather than supplying B's direct alternative that the challenger generated more negative news.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.