Logical Reasoning

PT136 · S2 · Q15 Commentator: Many social critics

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

Commentator: Many social critics claim that contemporary journalists' cynical tendency to look for selfish motives behind the seemingly altruistic actions of powerful people undermines our society's well-being by convincing people that success is invariably associated with greed and mendacity.

Conclusion

It's absurd to say that .

Evidence

Cynical journalists can't be a contributing factor to undermining society's well being, since journalists have always been cynics and today's cynics are more restrained than previous eras'.

Evaluate

This argument boils down to saying

We could just object by saying -- "Yup. And J's have always been causing Y." This argument is similar to saying

Goal

Look for an answer saying,

15.

The reasoning in the commentator's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it overlooks the possibility that

widespread cynicism is beneficial to
Strengthens
The author is arguing that the cynicism of journalists is not undermining the well-being of society, so this answer choice would strengthen the author's position.
5% picked this
cynicism about the motives of
No Impact
We only care about the cynicism of journalists. It's not clear whether this answer is talking about their cynicism or people's, more broadly. Do journalists now have more information about rich people? It's not established anywhere in the paragraph and we can't make an assumption there, so we have no way to use this answer to even infer whether there is currently more or less or equal cynicism concerning the motives of powerful people.
7% picked this
the work of contemporary journalists
Out of Scope: genuine
It's not clear how it would affect this argument if cynicism is sincere vs. disingenuous. The crux of the argument is simply that since the cynicism has always been there, we shouldn't believe that it's currently contributing to undermining society's well-being.
7% picked this
any accurate description of human
Out of Scope: accurate
This feels more like it is trying to defend the journalists' practice of pointing out the selfish motives of rich philanthropists. We need to be more specific about critiquing the author's reasoning move from, "Journalists have always been cynical" to "Journalists' cynicism is currently undermining our well-being." The author isn't saying journalists shouldn't be cynical or should be ... she isn't saying it's accurate or inaccurate for them to point out the selfishness of rich people. She's only debating whether this cynical approach is / isn't a causal contributor to undermining society. I might think that religious beliefs are totally inaccurate and that secular beliefs are accurate descriptions of reality, but I could still believe that religious beliefs contribute to the well-being of society and that secular beliefs undermine the well-being. Accuracy and causal-effect are two completely separate topics.
1% picked this
Correct
cynicism of this type on
Why this is right
If the author says, "journalists have always been cynical", and we say, "yes, and cynicism of this type has always had a negative effect on the well-being of society", then we are basically punching the conclusion in the face.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
80% 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