PrepTest 145, Section 2, Question 22
Everyone should have access to more than one(48 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AThe argument confuses(20 more words not shown)
- BThe argument overlooks(16 more words not shown)
- CA conclusion about(15 more words not shown)
- DThe argument takes(9 more words not shown)
- EThe argument is(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
One newspaper could cover two sides of a story. Having more than one perspective to report doesn't automatically mean we need more than one newspaper to report it.
The author adds that no newspaper adequately covers every side of every story. Let's accept that. Which stories get inadequate coverage, though? Maybe a paper covers all the important stories thoroughly and gives less attention to minor ones. The evidence would still be true, but the claim that important stories would go inadequately covered wouldn't follow.
What we’re looking for
That's the gap to look for in this flaw question. The argument moves from shortcomings somewhere in a paper's coverage to shortcomings in its coverage of important stories. It hasn't established that those two groups overlap.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Failing to cover all sides of every story doesn't establish a failure to cover an important story. A paper could do a complete job on every important story while falling short on some unimportant ones. The author hasn't shown why an important story must be among the inadequately covered stories, so the evidence doesn't establish the need for more than one paper.
- B
Two papers might offer the same incomplete coverage. That would show that having two doesn't guarantee adequate coverage. But the author argues that more than one is needed, not that any two papers will automatically be enough.
Think about the distinction: saying you need more than one paper leaves open whether the second paper you choose will help. Showing that two could still fail doesn't answer our objection that a single paper might already cover every important story adequately. B doesn't identify the inference the argument gets wrong.
- C
The argument includes a statement about what should happen: all sides of an important story should be covered. So it isn't based solely on descriptions of what newspapers actually do. Also, the conclusion concerns people's access to newspapers, rather than a rule about what newspapers themselves should do. C misdescribes both the support and the recommendation.
- D
Recommending that everyone should have access to more than one newspaper doesn't assume that everyone already has access to all newspapers. The proposed goal and the current situation are different. Nothing in the reasoning requires the sweeping access D describes.
- E
Focusing a recommendation on important stories isn't itself an error. The flaw is using a fact about incomplete coverage somewhere among all stories to establish inadequate coverage of important stories. We need to question that connection, not object merely because the author cares especially about important news.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.