Logical Reasoning

PT135 · S1 · Q20 Journalist: Newspapers generally report

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

Journalist: Newspapers generally report on only those scientific studies whose findings sound dramatic.

Conclusion

A small observational study must be more likely than a large randomized trial to have dramatic findings.

Evidence

Newspapers, which generally only report on dramatic scientific findings, more often feature stories about small observational studies than about large randomized trials.

Evaluate

Since the author is interpreting a statistical correlation, we can use our typical Curious Fact / Author's Interpretation schema. Curious Fact - Why are there more newspaper stories about small observational studies than about large randomized trials? Author's Interpretation - Small observational studies are more likely to have dramatic findings, which are the only kind of findings a newspaper will do a story about.

We always ask ourselves - How else could we explain the Curious Fact? - How plausible is the Author's Interpretation?

Goal

On a Flaw question, the correct answer is almost always that and only very rarely "the author has proposed an implausible explanation".

So we should primarily be looking for an answer that says , or the an answer that actually supplies a possible alternative reason for why there are more newspaper stories about small observational studies than about large randomized trials.

20.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses a flaw in the journalist's reasoning?

  1. It casts doubt on the

    Not "Ad Hominem"

    There's no "a study" for the author to question. This is a conversation about different types of studies, but there isn't "a study" mentioned at that any point, and the author certainly never calls out the motives of any researchers / experimenters. Undermining a point of view by attacking the source's motives is a famous flaw called Ad Hominem.

    1% picked this

  2. It fails to consider that

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This answer choice is attacking an argument that would sound like, "Since newspapers only report dramatic findings, they must usually be presenting findings that are very speculative from a scientific point of view." Our author never implied that certain findings were weakly or strongly supported, so there are no possible objections to be made by saying, "Even if X is true, the evidence for the findings might be strongly supported!" Our author's conclusion is only about whether or not you can deduce that small studies more often have dramatic findings than do large studies.

    10% picked this

  3. It confuses a claim about

    Not Confusing Those Two

    The author is not confusing two claims, but rather combining a claim about dramatic findings with a claim about small studies in order to derive her (erroneous) conclusion. Newspapers more likely to have dramatic + Newspapers more likely to have small studies ------------------------------------------------------- Thus, Small studies more likely to have dramatic

    14% picked this

  4. Correct

    It overlooks the possibility that

    Why this is right

    Here we got our alternate explanation for why newspapers more commonly have stories about small studies than about large trials: there are just far more small studies. If we said "Prisons only lock up criminals, and prisoners are more frequently right handed than left handed. Thus, right handed people must be more likely to end up a criminal", it would be vulnerable to the same objection -- no, there are just far more right handed people than left handed people in the general population. This is an example of the famous % vs. # flaw (i.e. Relative vs. Absolute). The evidence was about raw numbers (stories about small studies are more frequent), while the conclusion was about relative likelihood.

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

    62% picked this

  5. It fails to rule out

    Not Reverse Causality

    This is the time sequence of what the author is talking about in the evidence: 1. A study is conducted 2. A study finishes 3. A study publicizes its findings 4. Newspapers decide whether or not to run a story that covers each study, and they go by the principle that they will only cover studies "whose findings sound dramatic" It's clear from the language of "whose findings sound dramatic" that dramatic-sounding is a property that already belongs to the study's findings, as the newspaper is deciding on whether or not to cover it. It isn't possible in this conversation that "the way the newspaper reports on it makes the findings sound dramatic".

    13% 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