Logical Reasoning

PT142 · S4 · Q21 Letter to the editor: When your

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

Letter to the editor: When your newspaper reported the (admittedly extraordinary) claim by Mr. Hanlon that he saw an alien spaceship, the tone of your article was very skeptical despite the fact that Hanlon has over the years proved to be a trusted member of the community.

Conclusion

Your newspaper exhibits an unjustified bias.

Evidence

The tone of your coverage of Mr. Hanlon's claim that he saw a spaceship was very skeptical, even though Hanlon has proven to be a trusted member of the community and even though you wouldn't have had a skeptical tone had he claimed to have observed a large meteor.

(A large meteor is a a rare natural phenomenon / an alien spaceship sighting would be extraordinary)

Evaluate

To conflict with a principle means that the Trigger of the principle applies, but the Outcome does not.

Our author is arguing that, since Mr. H is trusted there was unjustified and → bias in being skeptical since paper would have about Mr. H's claim not been skeptical had he saw a spaceship Mr. H seen large meteor

A conflicting principle would be saying, .

Goal

If we were trying to defend the paper and say they were being correct, not biased, in showing skepticism of Mr. H's spaceship claim, we might want a principle like .

21.

The argument in the letter conflicts with which one of the following principles?

  1. Correct

    If a claim is extraordinary,

    Why this is right

    We want a principle where the left-side seems to match the argument we read, but the right side does not match the author's conclusion. Extraordinary claim it should not and ? be presented uncritically Not backed up by (i.e. it should be extremely good presented skeptically) evidence Mr. H did make an extraordinary claim, and, even though he's a trusted member of the community, his eyewitness testimony is not "evidence of an extraordinarily high standard". According to this principle, the newspaper should present this story with a critical / skeptical tone. According to the author, doing so was wrong and indicative of an unjustified bias. So the argument conflicts with the principle.

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

    55% picked this

  2. One should be skeptical of

    Partial Premise Mismatch

    This has the right kind of conclusion (i.e. it sounds like the opposite of our author's conclusion), but we can't match up everything in the trigger. Claim based upon testimonial evidence should be and ? skeptical of Evidence acquired that claim only through an intermediary source As far as we know, the newspaper got the eyewitness testimony directly from Mr. Hanlon. We have no way to say that the newspaper only acquired Mr. H's testimony through some intermediary source.

    16% picked this

  3. If a media outlet has

    Matches Author's Conclusion

    This does not conflict with the author. This principle is saying, "Since Mr. Hanlon has a good reputation, this newspaper should trust Mr. Hanlon, not report his claims with skepticism." The author would agree.

    22% picked this

  4. People who think they observe

    Not About Newspaper

    This is a principle that would govern Mr. Hanlon's actions, (he's the only person in this paragraph who thinks they observed a supernatural phenomenon), but the argument is concluding something about the newspaper's actions, so a conflicting principle needs to tell us something different about what the newspaper's actions should have been.

    6% picked this

  5. A newspaper should not publish

    Different Conclusion

    This is saying, if Mr. H's report was newspaper not confirmed by an ? should not publish independent source Mr. H's report Our author's conclusion is about whether or not the newspaper showed bias in using a skeptical tone in its report, while this principle is about whether or not the report should have been published at all. Given that our author seems to be suggesting that the newspaper should have reported Mr. H's claims, without skepticism, her argument does kind of go against this principle. But because the left side and right side of this principle are not a good match for the sort of wording found in the argument's premise and conclusion, this loses out to the correct answer, whose left side and right side discuss concepts that are much closer to the concepts discussed in the argument.

    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