LSAT 104 – Section 4 – Question 25

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 104 - Section 4 - Question 25

December 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:31

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve This gives you an idea of how this question is “curved”— in other words, what level of scorer is likely to get this question right. It shows a model of scaled LSAT score vs probability of getting the question correct. It is based on student test results for each question. The gray bar extends from the score for a 25% chance, to the score for a 75% chance of getting the question correct. The black line in the middle is the score for a 50% chance of getting the question correct. The percentage at the right is the expected chance of someone with the same score as you on that PrepTest getting that question correct	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve This gives you an idea of how this question is “curved”— in other words, what level of scorer is likely to get this question right. It shows a model of scaled LSAT score vs probability of getting the question correct. It is based on student test results for each question. The gray bar extends from the score for a 25% chance, to the score for a 75% chance of getting the question correct. The black line in the middle is the score for a 50% chance of getting the question correct. The percentage at the right is the expected chance of someone with the same score as you on that PrepTest getting that question correct	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT104 S4 Q25	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Conditional Reasoning +CondR	A 19% 167 B 10% 165 C 11% 164 D 7% 163 E 53% 171	157 168 178	+Hardest	147.438 +SubsectionMedium

Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries

First Previous1Next Last

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

All any reporter knows about the accident is what the press agent has said. Therefore, if the press agent told every reporter everything about the accident, then no reporter knows any more about it than any other reporter. If no reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter, then no reporter can scoop all of the other reporters. However, the press agent did not tell every reporter everything about the accident. It follows that some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters. This is based on the following:

All that any reporter knows about the accident is what the press agent said.

If the agent told every reporter everything, then each reporter knows the same amount as every other reporter.

If each reporter knows the same amount as every other reporter, a scoop is not possible.

But, the press agent did not tell every reporter everything.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author assumes that if the agent did not tell every reporter everything, that at least one reporter knows more than every other reporter. This assumption is faulty because it’s possible each reporter still knows the same amount as every other reporter, even if the agent withheld some information.

The press agent did not tell everything about the accident to any reporter.

This possibility doesn’t show why the reasoning is flawed. One reporter can still know more than all others, even if nobody knows everything. So this doesn’t show why a reporter might not be able to scoop the others.

Even if some reporter knows more about the accident than all of the other reporters, that reporter need not scoop any other reporter.

Whether a reporter “needs” to or will scoop others is irrelevant. The argument concerns whether at least one reporter “can,” meaning has the ability to, scoop other reporters. A reporter might have the ability to scoop others, even if they don’t actually scoop the others.

Some reporter may have been told something about the accident that the reporter tells all of the other reporters.

This possibility does not show why the argument is flawed. If one reporter shares something they were told to all other reporters, it’s still possible for one reporter to know more than all the others. So (C) doesn’t show why scooping might not be possible.

The press agent may not know any more about the accident than the most knowledgeable reporter.

This possibility does not show why the argument is flawed. One reporter can still know more than all others, even if that reporter doesn’t know more than the press agent. So (D) doesn’t show why scooping might not be possible.

No reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter.

If this possibility were true, then it’s impossible for one reporter to scoop another, because each reporter would know the same amount as every other reporter. The agent might not have told everything, but the reporters can still end up knowing the same information.

LSAT 104 – Section 4 – Question 25

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 104 - Section 4 - Question 25

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 104 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel