Logical Reasoning

PT15 · S2 · Q11 Should a journalist’s story begin

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

Should a journalist’s story begin with the set phrase “in a surprise development,” as routinely happens?

Conclusion (Implicit)

A journalist's story should not begin with the phrase "in a surprise development".

Evidence

If the surprise was merely the journalist's surprise, then the journalist shouldn't include the sentiment about the surprise because that's just intruding themselves into their stories, which journalists aren't supposed to do.

If the surprise is someone else's, then it should be specifically attributed to that person (not just said generically at the outset of the article).

And if the surprise is just "everyone's", then just get on with the breaking news. Sure, dramatic breaking news will be to everyone's surprise, so just tell us the news, rather than state the obvious preamble "in a surprise development".

Evaluate

This is a weird Main Conclusion question because the conclusion is the implied takeaway from the paragraph, rather than an explicit claim.

We know that on Main Conclusion, the main conclusion is usually found in the 1st sentence or found in some Pivot / Rebuttal claim.

The 1st sentence here is a rhetorical question, and it's an opinionated question, because it's about whether something should be done. Thus, if the author answers or implies an answer to this question, it will be conveying an author's opinion, which is what the main conclusion should be.

The 2nd and 3rd sentences lay out three different options that all lead to the same takeaway: it's dumb / silly to start the article with "in a surprise development".

By covering all possibilities and showing that it's never appropriate to start with "in a surprise development", the author is providing her implicit answer to the rhetorical question in the first sentence.

Her answer is an opinionated rebuttal: journalists shouldn't start their stories that way, even though they routinely do.

Goal

Let's look for something like .

11.

Which one of the following most accurately states the conclusion of the argument above?

  1. Journalists should reserve use of

    Wrong Takeaway

    The author doesn't think in any of the three circumstances that she laid out that a journalist should use the "in a surprise development" intro.

    21% picked this

  2. The phrase “in a surprise

    Wrong Takeaway

    The author doesn't think in any of the three circumstances that she laid out that a journalist should use the "in a surprise development" intro.

    4% picked this

  3. The phrase “in a surprise

    Not the Conclusion

    We can almost infer this claim from the paragraph, although the author is laying out three hypothetical circumstances. We don't know if the phrase is actually used in those three cases. But even if we could infer this claim, it wouldn't capture the opinion the author was selling us and supporting with evidence. This isn't even an opinionated claim.

    2% picked this

  4. Journalists should make the point

    Wrong Takeaway

    The author doesn't think in any of the three circumstances that she laid out that a journalist should use the "in a surprise development" intro. And she never comments on whether a story should end with such a phrase, but it's implied that the author would be against the phrase appearing anywhere in the article (unless it's being directly attributed to a specific surprised person somewhere in the middle of the article).

    3% picked this

  5. Correct

    Introducing stories with the phrase

    Why this is right

    This is our closest meaning match for what we were looking for: "Journalists should not begin a story with set phrase in a surprise development." Saying that journalists shouldn't do it is similar to saying it's not good journalistic practice. The author supports this opinion by presenting three different cases in which there is some surprise, and in all three cases she Rules Out the idea of starting an article with this phrase.

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

    70% 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