Logical Reasoning

PT106 · S3 · Q17 In 1992, a major newspaper circulated

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

In 1992, a major newspaper circulated throughout North America paid its reporters an average salary that was much lower than the average salary paid by its principal competitors to their reporters.

Background

Paper X pays its reporters a much lower average salary than other papers pay their reporters.

Evaluate

We need to weaken this justification. This is how Paper X justifies paying its reporters lower than average wages, and we need to make this seem like a crappy excuse for the low wages.

This justification Assumes a Difference -- aren't the reporters at the other papers, where they pay better, also getting valuable training through their assignments?

The executive must be thinking that the training you get at Paper X is a lot more valuable than the training you get elsewhere.

Goal

Find an answer that makes "the training" seem less valuable or less special than the executive wants to think it is.

17.

Which one of the following, if true about the newspaper in 1992, most seriously undermines the justification offered by the executive?

Senior reporters at the newspaper
No Impact
This makes it sound like if you stay with paper X for many years, you'll eventually make what other reporters make. So, if the average salary is less as Paper X, it must be because of what they pay the more junior reporters. That's actually compatible with the executive's story: we pay the newbies less but compensate them with valuable training.
18% picked this
Correct
Most of the newspaper’s reporters
Why this is right
If most of the reporting staff already has a decade of experience, then they probably aren't too mollified by the executive saying, "Look ... I'm payin' you guys peanuts, but you're getting valuable training!" They will be like, "We're well trained already. We've been working here over a decade. How about just paying us what other papers pay their reporters!"
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
66% picked this
The circulation of the newspaper
Out of Scope: circulation
How many readers the paper has is not relevant. Depending on the popularity of the paper, there might be more / fewer reporters on staff. But the average salary shouldn't be dependent on that.
11% picked this
The union that represented reporters
No Impact: different
This doesn't give any clear reason for rejecting the idea that "they're paid less, but we make up for it with valuable training".
4% picked this
The newspaper was widely read
Out of Scope: where it's read
If anything, this might strengthen the justification, if we add some assumptions that a paper read that globally probably has good foreign coverage and thus probably sends reporters out on assignment to places around the world (giving them the valuable training the exec has promised).
1% 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