Logical Reasoning

PT140 · S1 · Q2 Accountant: The newspaper industry

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

Accountant: The newspaper industry habitually cites the rising cost of newsprint to explain falling profits.

Implied Conclusion (rebuttal)

The rising cost of newsprint isn't why newspapers have falling profits.

Intermediate Conclusion

The real threats to profitability are falling circulation and falling advertising, not newsprint costs.

Premise

Adjusted for inflation, newsprint isn't any more expensive than it was a decade ago.

Evaluate

The three most common things we see on Method are 1. Analogies 2. Faulty Implications of Logic / Plan 3. Alternatives

The context of this conversation is Explain Curious Fact ("why are profits falling for newspapers?"). Our author is disputing one hypothesis ("rising cost of newsprint") by showing that it's implausible ("the cost of newsprint hasn't risen") as well by proposing an Alternative explanation ().

Goal

Let's look for any answer that matches. The author derailed one explanation for a phenomenon by showing it wasn't plausible and proposed an Alternate explanation for it.

2.

The accountant's argument proceeds by

  1. reinterpreting a popular analogy in

    Bad Description

    There's no analogy in the accountant's argument. I'm not even sure what a popular analogy would be. There's a popular hypothesis from the newspaper industry about why profits are falling, but that's it.

    2% picked this

  2. using economic data to raise

    Bad Description

    There is some economic data presented, relating to the cost of newsprint. But what would we match up with "a historically accepted approach"? Historically, newspapers have used newsprint to print their papers? But the author certainly isn't suggesting that they stop using newsprint.

    6% picked this

  3. criticizing a newly developed method

    Bad Description

    The accountant doesn't criticize a "newly developed method" or compare it to a conventional one. There's no comparison between methods at all. The argument is about competing explanations for falling profits.

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    challenging an explanation that has

    Why this is right

    Nice, this gives us both parts of the author's argument. We challenge the "rising cost of newsprint" explanation by saying that the cost of newsprint hasn't actually risen, and then we introduce a different explanation (falling circulation / falling advertising) as the real explanation for the falling profits of the newspaper industry.

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

    89% picked this

  5. calling into question a justification

    Bad Description

    Out of Scope (justification for a practice) The author is calling into question an explanation for a phenomenon. There isn't any justification for a practice. That would be like saying, "The reason we offer some articles for free and put others behind a paywall is ____ ." The newspaper industry is trying to explain falling profits, but falling profits aren't a "practice". They're just something that's happening. This answer alludes to a Faulty Implications move, where you show the author that they're wrong by showing how their same logic would lead to some undesirable / untrue outcome.

    2% 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