PrepTest 126, Section 3, Question 16
When a threat to life is common, as(59 more words not shown)
If the statements above are(15 more words not shown)
- AWhether governmental action(21 more words not shown)
- BPeople tend to(24 more words not shown)
- CThose who get(22 more words not shown)
- DReporters tend not(19 more words not shown)
- EThe resources that(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The news isn't a proportional sample of what can hurt us.
An ordinary car accident may get little attention because car accidents are common. An instance of product tampering becomes a featured story precisely because it's unusual. If I use how often I hear about something as my measure of how often it happens, that difference in coverage can distort my picture.
That's where the final statement matters: people tend to estimate risk by how frequently a threat comes to their attention. Put the statements together, and someone following the news may give rare threats too much weight compared with ordinary ones. The ordinary danger hasn't disappeared just because it isn't making headlines.
What we’re looking for
For the supported-inference question, I'd expect that mismatch between attention and actual risk. It could be stated using the particular threats or as a broader point about people's estimates. We don't need to add a recommendation about what to do in response.
Working the answers
- A
We haven't been told how governments decide to act. Media attention might influence public perceptions without being the primary determinant of government action. A introduces a decision-making process that the passage doesn't describe.
- B
The passage concerns how often a threat comes to people's attention, not how dreadful or uncontrollable it seems. A frightening threat could receive little coverage, while a less frightening one could be repeatedly featured. B substitutes a different explanation for people's estimates.
- CCorrect
People who mainly rely on the news tend to overestimate uncommon threats relative to common ones. Uncommon incidents receive prominent coverage, while only unusual instances of common threats do. Combined with the tendency to estimate risk from frequency of exposure, that reporting pattern supports a distorted comparison. C doesn't need to say that rare dangers actually happen more often than common ones.
- D
Nothing tells us whether reporters prefer near-term threats over long-term ones. The distinction is unusual versus common, not immediate versus distant. A rare threat could have effects far in the future and still fit the description of what reporters find newsworthy.
- E
Coverage doesn't establish prevention spending. We aren't told the resources devoted to product tampering, weather hazards, or how those budgets compare. E adds a financial comparison that doesn't follow from facts about reporting and perception.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.