In 1992, a major newspaper circulated

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

TopicsWeaken

Keep going in LSAT Lab

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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

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. An executive of the newspaper argued that this practice was justified, since any shortfall that might by the valuable training they receive through their assignments.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question

17.

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

Answer choices

No Impact18% picked this
Senior reporters at the newspaper earned as much as reporters of similar stature who worked for
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%
Correct67% picked this
Most of the newspaper’s reporters had worked there for more than
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.
67%
Out of Scope: circulation11% picked this
The circulation of the newspaper had recently reached a plateau, after it had increased steadily
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%
No Impact: different4% picked this
The union that represented reporters at the newspaper was different from the union that represented reporters
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%
Out of Scope: where it's read1% picked this
The newspaper was widely read throughout continental Europe and Great Britain as well
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%

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