PrepTest 153, Section 3, Question 5
As the current information explosion forces the print(30 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AThe drawbacks of(7 more words not shown)
- BPeople are more(8 more words not shown)
- CJournalistic standards have(4 more words not shown)
- DOne result of(21 more words not shown)
- EIf journalists returned(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I can see how competing for attention might reward cutting corners. Imagine two publishers chasing the same story. One takes time to check the sources; the other publishes immediately and captures the audience first. If speed brings the reward, careful checking can start to look like a disadvantage.
There is a second possibility: a well-researched story competes with a flashy headline that promises more than the story delivers. The headline may win the clicks even though the article underneath is weak. In both examples, the pressure to attract attention could encourage worse journalism.
Those examples make the author's account plausible; they don't prove that it describes the media as a whole. I'd still want support for how widespread the problem is. But the question asks for the conclusion, so our job is to trace the account being offered: competition pushes standards down, and lower standards expose us to more inaccurate, unimportant material.
What we’re looking for
The last result is the point. Why are we getting more bad information? Because standards have fallen. Why have standards fallen? Because media outlets compete for attention and money. Working backward through those reasons keeps us from stopping at a supporting claim.
Working the answers
- A
A downside is not the same as a downside that outweighs every benefit. Perhaps instant access to useful information is a major improvement over waiting for a newspaper to arrive, even if we also have to sort through more unreliable stories. The author identifies the bad information; the author does not weigh it against all the benefits and declare the information explosion a net loss.
- BCorrect
This restates the final result: people increasingly receive insignificant and unreliable information. 'Insignificant' matches 'trivial,' and 'unreliable' matches 'inaccurate.' We don't need the same words; we need the same claim about what the public is increasingly exposed to.
- C
This is an important step, but it isn't where the reasoning ends. Competition is offered as the reason standards fall; falling standards are then offered as the reason we get more inaccurate and trivial information. C sits between the starting pressure and the final consequence.
- D
This gives the competition that starts the explanation. It helps explain lower journalistic standards, which in turn help explain the final information problem. Naming that starting point leaves out the claim the author uses it to support.
- E
Returning to earlier standards is a possible response someone might propose. The author doesn't propose it or predict its results. Even if we thought the reform would help, an inference about a possible remedy is not a restatement of the conclusion actually drawn.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.