Logical Reasoning

PT11 · S4 · Q18 Teacher: Journalists who conceal the identity

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

Teacher: Journalists who conceal the identity of the sources they quote stake their professional reputations on what may be called the logic of anecdotes.

Conclusion

Journalists stake their professional reputations on the logic of anecdotes when they conceal the identity of their sources.

Evidence (this is so because)

The statements reported by journalists who conceal their sources' identities are dissociated from the precise circumstances in which they were made.

These statements will be accepted for publication only if they are high in plausibility, originality, or interest to a given audience.

These are the properties of a good anecdote.

Evaluate

This argument is not a direct fit for any of our common patterns. However, it does seem to have an important New Concept in the Conclusion: "staking their professional reputation".

We hear about what it takes to get an anonymous quote published (it has to be plausible, original, and interesting) and that anecdotes share these qualities.

And then we take a leap to "staking their reputation on the logic of anecdotes".

It's possible that even though anonymous testimony must have some qualities that are shared with anecdotes, there are still important differences. It's also possible that whether or not a journalist can get the anonymous testimony published has little to no connection to their professional reputation.

Goal

Lacking any specific idea of what we want, let's try to buttress the argument by making anonymous sources even more similar to anecdotes, or by filling in the gap about why this affects a journalist's professional reputation.

18.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the teacher’s argument?

Correct
A journalist undermines his or
Why this is right
This connects the evidence to the New Concept in the Conclusion. It tells us directly how using an anonymous source that DOESN'T have the necessary qualities of good anecdotes would undermine the journalist's professional standing / reputation. If the content they submit is rejected for being implausible, unoriginal, or dull, they harm their professional reputation. This supports the teacher's argument that journalists rely on the intrinsic value of anecdotes when using anonymous sources.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
63% picked this
Statements that are attributed to
No Impact
This is saying that most things aren't anonymous, but we only care to talk about what happens when a journalist DOES want to use an anonymous source, and this answer has nothing about that for us to grab onto.
6% picked this
Reported statements that are highly
No Impact
This might be a tempting word salad, because it connects a journalist's reputation (known for solid work) with qualities that anonymous sources / anecdotes may or may not have. But the causality is reversed here. The argument is saying that the sort of anonymous testimony a journalist uses can affect their reputation. This answer is saying that a journalist's reputation can affect how people react to the anonymous testimony they use.
14% picked this
Reputable journalists sometimes do not
Unclear Impact
This introduces a distinction of "anonymous to the public, but known to the publisher" vs. "anonymous to the public and the publisher". It's not clear what we would do with that distinction, since the argument is just referring to anonymous sources. This answer involves journalists who already have a good reputation and "at least once" decide to partially reveal their anonymous source (to the publisher). But it doesn't involve anything like what the conclusion is claiming, wherein a journalist uses an anonymous source that could risk harming their professional reputation.
12% picked this
Journalists who have special access
Weaker Impact
Option (E) speaks to the value of journalists who have special access to anonymous sources, which somewhat connects using anonymous sources to reputation (they'd have a reputation among their publishers of being an important asset). But this has nothing to do with whether the anonymous testimony needs to conform to the standards of a good anecdote in order to avoid harming the journalist's professional reputation.
6% 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