Logical Reasoning

PT104 · S4 · Q25 All any reporter knows about the

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

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

Conclusion

Some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters ("scoop" means that they can report something first, that the others don't know yet)

Evidence

Since all the reporters are getting their info solely from the press agent, if the press agent told every reporter everything, then no reporters would know anything special, and thus no press agent could scoop anyone else.

But the press agent didn't tell every reporter everything about the accident.

Evaluate

Because we see Flaw + Conditional Logic, we should immediately be thinking about the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, in which the author presents conditional logic in the premises but thinks about some rule or rules in an illegal Backwards or Opposite fashion.

Given: A → B Illegal: B → A (backwards) Illegal: ~A → ~B (opposite)

We had this conditional chain:

Press agent told all reporters no every reporter → know same → reporter everything can scoop

The author is arguing in an illegal opposite fashion, saying:

Press agent did not tell → some reporter every reporter everything can scoop

Goal

Look for an answer naming the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, or an answer objecting that .

Maybe the press agent only told 1/2 the story, but she told the same 1/2 to all the reporters. In such a case, the press agent didn't tell every reporter everything, but none of them could scoop any of the others because they're all briefed on the exact same subset of facts.

25.

The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument fails to recognize that which one of the following is consistent with the facts the argument presents?

The press agent did not
Weak Impact
This is saying, "What if no reporters known 100% of the story?" That's not much of an objection. It's still possible that some reporter knows 80% of the story while all the other reporters only know 50% of the story. That would allow the 80% reporter to scoop all the others on those 30% extra details that only he knows.
23% picked this
Even if some reporter knows
No Impact
This is true, but the author was only concluding that some reporter could scoop all the others, not that they would scoop all the others. This answer is an objection to that latter claim, saying, "Even if they know more, they won't necessarily break that story". (You'll never see a correct answer that says, "Even if [the conclusion is true] .... ")
12% picked this
Some reporter may have been
Weak Impact
If some reporter is told Fact A and shares that fact with all the other reporters, then no reporter can scoop all the others about Fact A. But the author's conclusion could still be correct. Maybe one reporter knows Facts X/Y/Z, and no other reporter knows those facts. Such a reporter could scoop all the others, so the author could still be correct.
13% picked this
The press agent may not
Irrelevant Comparison
The argument doesn't rely on any assumptions about the difference in knowledge between the press agent and the most knowledgeable reporter. The argument relies on an assumption about the difference in knowledge between the most knowledgeable reporters and all the other reporters: the author is assuming that the most knowledgeable one knows something that all the others don't, and thus can scoop them. A comparison between the press agent and the most knowledgeable reporter isn't relevant to the conclusion.
8% picked this
Correct
No reporter knows any more
Why this is right
If this is true, then it actually blows up the author's conclusion. Either every reporter knows the same, or some reporter knows more about the accident than another reporter. If every reporter knows the same amount, then no reporter can scoop all the other reporters (they all have access to the same facts). We're given a premise that says, "If no reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter, then no reporter can scoop all the other reporters". So this answer choice triggers a rule that then refutes the author's conclusion. If you're curious about thinking about this formally, pretend we have this argument: A → B. B → C. A isn't true. Thus, C isn't true. This author is doing an illegal opposite move. It's acting like ~A → ~C, but we don't have that rule and can't derive it. When an author is assuming an illegal conditional relationship, we can either describe it as a Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, or we can say, "The author fails to consider that it's possible the Left side is true and the Right side is false." Our author assumed an illegal conditional relationship: Press agent some reporter can didn't tell anyone → scoop all the others everything That second idea requires that some reporter knows more about the accident than any other reporter So this question stem + answer choice is saying: It's possible that LEFT is true Press agent didn't tell any reporter everything while the RIGHT side is false but no reporter knows more than any other reporter
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
45% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free