PT27.S4.Q25 - all any reporter knows

Giant Panda

Hi All,

This is a difficult flaw question and I intent to give a shoot at explaining it, which is different from JY. Please help and check my explanation's validity.

The question link is here: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-27-section-4-question-25/

For flaw question, the first step I do is always noticing the logic and try to draw it out. This helps to distinguish whether the logic fallacy is a formal fallacy or informal fallacy.

Under this question, the logic are breaking down into the following:

Premise 1: Reporter knowledge-->Press Agent-->Tells Everything-->1 reporter knows more->Scoop other reporters
Activator: Tells Everything
Conclusion: Scoop other reporters

By this we notice that it is a SA/NA fallacy.

However, we are not finished. As time consuming as drawing the logic out, the question steam puts the final hurdle.

The question didn't ask "Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning in the argument", but instead, it says, which one of the following which isn't stated, but is consistent with the flaw.

In other words, we are trying to find one thing that is consistent within the flaw, which we have defined. And we are not defining the flaw here, but a consistent use of language.

Which marks E correct, which translates into: 1 reporter knows more-->Reporter knowledge. I agree, the translation isn't as perfect, but it does draw a great deal of similarity.

Had the question asked to identify the flaw in this question, then B becomes the correct answer, which states: one doesn't have to be a reporter and not scoop the reporters. To see this, refer to PT25-S4-Q23.

Please comment on my explanation.

Thanks,

Panda

JustDoIt

Hi Panda!

Great analysis. I agree with you all the way until your explanation for B being the right choice. The reason for that is because the conclusion says "can" instead of will. "Can" does not necessitate a necessary condition. All that means is that it is possible for what follows the "can" to actually happen. Thus, even though the set up is for a S/N flaw (which you did correctly), I don't think this qualifies as an S/N flaw because the conclusion doesn't necessitate conditionality.

As far as B goes, I don't think it would be right regardless because we don't know if anyone knows more than anyone else. In fact, it doesn't seem that way. So in order for this to illustrate the flaw, we would need it to say something like we can have the necessary without the sufficient or some times the necessary condition does not lead to the sufficient. We do not have that here. And especially where we have no conditionality, I don't think this is right. It is just saying they don't have to scoop them, which doesn't matter because that is not excluded by "can."