PrepTest 154, Section 2, Question 20
The public's welfare can be undermined by its(53 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AThe best interests(17 more words not shown)
- BJournalists' tendency to(20 more words not shown)
- CNewspaper articles that(17 more words not shown)
- DThe shortcomings of(11 more words not shown)
- EJournalists should pay(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
People can want something that ends up working against them. That's the broad claim in the first sentence. How will the author support it?
The next sentence turns to journalists giving readers stories that interest them. At first, we might imagine crime stories attracting attention while leaving readers anxious. But the passage develops a different problem: dramatic rumors and conspiracies push aside straightforward reporting on important political and social developments.
Think of it as news junk food. Readers want the exciting story, journalists provide it, and the less exciting information that could matter more gets crowded out. The author uses that pattern as an example of people's own preferences undermining their welfare.
What we’re looking for
So for the main conclusion, follow the example back to the broad point it supports. The argument isn't mainly trying to tell us that conspiracies attract attention or that particular articles get displaced. Those details explain how the public's tastes can work against its interests. We want a restatement of that opening claim.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
'Best interests' restates welfare, and 'preferences' restates tastes. The claim is that what people want can sometimes prevent their interests from being served. The journalism example illustrates that general point: choosing the appealing material can come at the cost of information that matters more.
- B
This stays inside the journalism example. It describes one way public welfare can be harmed: journalists favor sensational material over more important stories. That is relevant to the argument, but the stated overall conclusion is broader and makes people's own tastes the source of the problem. B captures the example's harmful outcome rather than fully restating the general point it supports.
- C
This describes the displacement the author uses as evidence. Rumors and conspiracies crowd out important reporting. Ask why the author tells us this: to illustrate how giving people the material they prefer can fail to serve them well. C supplies that example, not the broader conclusion.
- D
This turns the focus toward explaining shortcomings in journalism. The author's larger point concerns the public's welfare, and journalism is the example chosen to demonstrate it. We aren't trying to account for the shortcomings of modern print journalism generally. That changes both the scope and the emphasis.
- E
The author doesn't make this recommendation to journalists. We might decide that journalists should change their priorities after reading the argument, but that would be our further judgment. The stated conclusion describes a possible harmful result of the public's preferences; it doesn't tell journalists what they ought to do.
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.