Logical Reasoning

PT108 · S3 · Q1 Despite the best efforts of

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

Despite the best efforts of journalists to be objective, it is inevitable that their own biases will enter their reporting, even if inadvertently.

Conclusion (therefore)

It's imperative that trained editors look over journalists' work with an eye towards finding and removing biases, to make reporting as objective as possible.

Evidence

It's inevitable that bias will enter journalists' reporting, even if inadvertently.

Evaluate

Given that ... bias will inevitably creep its way into journalists' work,

How could we argue that ... it's not imperative that a trained editor look the work over to find and remove bias, in order to make reporting as objective as possible?

We might feel this argument as a Plan / Goal, or a Problem / Solution type conversation. The problem is bias. The goal is to remove bias. The plan/solution is to have trained editors scan for bias and remove it.

When we see an author say, , there are two different types of assumptions:

the author is assuming that her recommendation, Y, actually helps to address problem X

the author is assuming that there aren't other ways to address problem X

Goal

So the author needs to assume that trained editors will be able to detect bias, they'll be motivated/willing to comply with removing that bias once detected, and this won't backfire in some way (the editor's omissions won't actually inject the editor's bias into the final reporting).

And the author also needs to assume that there's some other way to address bias that would be at least as effective as trained editors (even if that comparable level of effectiveness is "has no meaningful effect").

Each of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends EXCEPT:

Journalists do not eliminate all
Assumed
If we negated this, it would say, "Journalists eliminate all the biases that enter their reporting". That would badly weaken, so we know this is being assumed. If journalists were eliminating all the biases that entered their reporting, then there's no bias problem to solve. It doesn't matter whether we have a trained editor look over the work or not. We've already got the work as objective as possible (because all bias was removed), so we don't need a trained editor to get it to max objectivity.
4% picked this
It is imperative that reporting
Assumed
If we said, "The faucet won't stop leaking. Thus, it's imperative that we hire a plumber", then we'd have assumptions like a plumber can stop a leaky faucet no one besides a plumber can stop a leaky faucet and it would also have this assumption: it is imperative that we fix the leaky faucet After all, if the leaky faucet isn't a problem we need to solve, then it isn't imperative that we hire anyone. Similarly, if we don't care about the existence of bias in reporting, then we don't need to hire a trained editor to remove the bias. Thus, the author must be assuming "we need to remove the bias. Reporting should be as objective as possible."
3% picked this
Objectivity in reporting is undermined
Assumed
This is really functionally the same as (B). It's just saying, "the author is assuming that bias is a problem." If we negate this and say, "Objectivity is not undermined by the presence of journalists' bias", then there's no reason to think that removing bias has anything to do with making reporting as objective as possible. This answer is Linking a concept from the premise, "bias", to a New Concept in the Conclusion, "as objective as possible".
4% picked this
Trained editors are able to
Assumed
This answer is saying, "The author assumes that her solution is capable of addressing the problem." The author wouldn't be saying, "We have a bias problem. Thus, it's imperative that we get a trained editor to look at this work" unless they thought that a trained editor would be able to detect and address that bias. If we negate this, it says, "Trained editors are unable to detect any biases of journalists." That would weaken like crazy because it would be saying that the author's solution has no chance of being able to help with the problem.
6% picked this
Correct
Journalists' reporting that is not
Why this is right
This is not assumed because the argument doesn't care at all about whether trained editors take any reporting seriously. It only cares about whether trained editors can do the job we want them to do: find and remove bias. I might say, "My daughter's 4th grade soccer team sucks at corner kicks. Thus, it's imperative that we hire Coach Jackson to work with them." I am assuming that Coach Jackson has the potential to make a meaningful improvement in the soccer team's ability to perform corner kicks. But I'm not assuming that teams who can't do corner kicks aren't taken seriously by Coach Jackson. It really doesn't matter which teams she takes seriously or not, as long as she can coach my daughter's squad when it comes to corner kicks.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
83% 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