PrepTest 145, Section 4, Question 5
Some scientific issues are so complex and counterintuitive(54 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the argument(12 more words not shown)
- Aeditors of popular(17 more words not shown)
- Bpopular magazines cannot(13 more words not shown)
- Chighly complex and(11 more words not shown)
- Dreaders of popular(14 more words not shown)
- Emost readers of(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Interesting doesn't necessarily mean understandable.
A difficult topic in theoretical physics might fascinate magazine readers while remaining beyond what they can follow well. We might initially think a magazine could simplify it. But the passage stipulates that some of these issues cannot be well understood by its readers, then concludes that some of the most interesting stories usually don't get covered.
What we’re looking for
The blank comes after “since,” so we need a reason supporting the publication decision. What connects those facts? The editors must tend to leave out material their readers won't understand. Without some editorial rule like that, the readers' difficulty doesn't tell us what the magazine publishes. Perhaps editors would run a fascinating story even knowing many readers couldn't follow it.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Editors generally don't approve stories about issues their readers cannot understand well. That connects the stated difficulty with the conclusion that these stories usually aren't covered. A topic can be fascinating and still fail this editorial requirement.
- B
Needing interesting stories to stay in business doesn't explain why these particular interesting stories are left out. It could give editors a reason to consider them. The magazine might also find other interesting material, so B doesn't force publication of every fascinating story; it simply fails to supply the reason for rejecting the difficult ones.
- C
More complex theories becoming available gives us more possible material. It doesn't establish what the editors do with that material. The missing connection concerns publication choices, not how frequently scientists develop difficult theories.
- D
Readers misjudging their own understanding is different from editors refusing a story because readers won't understand it. A reader could mistakenly think a story made sense, or underestimate how much they understood. D doesn't tell us why either situation leads the magazine to leave the story out.
- E
This concerns what readers do if they look beyond the magazine. They might refuse to search elsewhere and miss an interesting topic entirely, but that wouldn't explain why the magazine omitted it in the first place. We need a reason for the editors' choice, not a consequence of where readers seek information.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.