Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S4 · Q9 Television news coverage gives

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

Start practicing free

Television news coverage gives viewers a sense of direct involvement with current events but does not provide the depth of coverage needed for the significance of those events to be appreciated.

Conclusion (therefore)

Few people ever fully understand current events.

Evidence (since)

Few people seek our news sources other than newspapers and TV.

TV provides a sense of direct involvement, but not enough depth to understand significance.

Newspapers provide depth but no direct involvement.

A full understanding of current events requires both enough depth to appreciate significance of events and a sense of direct involvement with them.

Evaluate

Since the conclusion is saying that "few people ever fully understand current events", we'd be trying to counter-argue, "nuh-uh ... most people fully understand current events".

"Fully understanding" is defined to require both appreciation of significance and a sense of direct involvement. So if we're arguing that most people fully understand current events, we need to be able to argue that most people have both an appreciation of the significance of current events and a sense of direct involvement.

The author will say,

We would probably say,

Goal

Look for a specific objection sounding like, .

Or look for an abstract objection sounding like,

9.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

  1. Correct

    treats two things, neither one

    Why this is right

    What a weird way to say what we were looking for. This kind of answer choice underscores the value of knowing how you plan to object to the argument before you start reading answer choices. Our objection was like, "Hey, author --- people can both watch TV (for direct involvement) and read the paper (for depth and appreciation)." The author's argument was predicated on the fact that TV itself can't provide full understanding, and newspaper itself can't provide full understanding. The author's blind spot was that if you combine these two things, then you'd have both necessary ingredients for full understanding. She's failing to consider that people could both read the paper and watch tv. She's assuming they don't do both. She's treating them like they're mutually exclusive.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    77% picked this

  2. ignores the possibility that people

    Not an Objection

    Since this answer begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would Weaken. Can we hurt the argument by saying, "Hey, author ... people aren't reading/watching in the hope of gaining a full understanding of current events"? No, that wouldn't hurt the author. It would strengthen her claim that most people are not fully understanding current events.

    12% picked this

  3. makes crucial use of the

    Not an Objection

    It's true that the author never provides a specific definition of the term "depth of coverage", but that's not a logical problem we have with the argument. The logic of the argument is this: Full understanding requires Y and Z. Most people only use TV and Papers. TV can give Y but not Z. Papers can give Z but not Y. ------- Thus, most people don't have full understanding. We could make the exact same logical objection to this argument (couldn't people get their Y from the TV and their Z from the papers and thereby attain a full understanding?), even though the argument never defines what Z means.

    2% picked this

  4. fails to consider the possible

    Not an Objection

    Since this answer begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would Weaken. Can we hurt the argument by saying, "Hey, author ... it might be kind of grueling and depressing to have a sense of direct involvement with current events, when they're tragic or violent?" No, that wouldn't hurt the author. She wasn't advocating that people should have a full understanding of current events (if she were, then we could raise the potential downsides of having a full understanding). She is just descriptively concluding that we don't have a full understanding. I can conclude that "Canada doesn't have the nuclear capacity to blow up the Moon", and that doesn't imply that I think Canada should have that capacity.

    1% picked this

  5. mistakenly reasons that just because

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This answer is structured like this: reasons that because X, Y So we would check to see if X matches the evidence and if Y matches the conclusion (or the gateway assumption that gets the author to the conclusion). Was the evidence saying that "something has the capacity to perform a given function"? Sure, the evidence said that "TV has the capacity to give viewers a sense of direct involvement / Newspapers have the capacity to provide depth of coverage". So then according to this answer, the conclusion should have been saying/assuming that "Therefore, TV does give viewers a sense of direct involvement" or "Thus, newspapers do provide depth of coverage". But our conclusion sounds nothing like either of those claims.

    8% 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