All any reporter knows about the

Answer choices

1. A

   Weak Impact23% picked this

   The press agent did not tell everything about the accident to

   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%
2. B

   No Impact12% picked this

   Even if some reporter knows more about the accident than all of the other reporters, that reporter need

   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%
3. C

   Weak Impact13% picked this

   Some reporter may have been told something about the accident that the reporter tells all

   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%
4. D

   Irrelevant Comparison8% picked this

   The press agent may not know any more about the accident than the

   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%
5. E

   Correct44% picked this

   No reporter knows any more about the accident than any

   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.

   44%