Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S4 · Q18 Blogger: Traditionally, newspapers

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

Blogger: Traditionally, newspapers have taken objectivity to be an essential of good journalism.

Conclusion

The move from aiming for objectivity to aiming to create stir with partisan reporting is best understood in terms of differing business strategies.

Evidence

The new media outlets, who try to create a stir with partisan reporting, need to differentiate themselves in a crowded marketplace.

The old media outlets, who were aiming for objectivity, needed to avoid offending potential readers.

Evaluate

The structure of this argument is that Old vs. New can be explained by Goal 1 vs. Goal 2, which leaves us with two missing links to consider.

In order for the Old style (objectivity) to satisfy Goal 1 (avoid offending potential readers), the author needs to assume that objectivity is good at avoiding offending potential readers.

In order for the New style (create stir with open partisanship) to satisfy Goal 2 (differentiate themselves in crowded marketplace), the author needs to assume that creating a stir with openly partisan reporting helps to differentiate a news outlet in a crowded marketplace, i.e. it's not the case that everyone in this crowded marketplace is already doing this create a stir with openly partisan reporting strategy, because then it wouldn't serve the purpose of helping an outlet stick out from the crowd.

Goal

Look for either of the two missing links we found, or look for an answer ruling out some better explanation for understanding the contrast between Old and New journalistic standards.

18.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the blogger's argument?

  1. Journalists at traditional newspapers are

    Unsupported Comparison: just as partisan

    It's always an extreme comparison when you say "equal / same / just as much", because you're saying two things are identical. Does the author's argument really need traditional journalists to be identically partisan as modern journalists? If they were only 85% as partisan, would that hurt the argument? Of course not. This also seems to go against the current of the conversation, since the traditional newspapers wanted objectivity (and so may have tried to hire more objective, nonpartisan writers) whereas the modern papers want partisan provocateurs (so they may try to hire more partisan writers). This answer might have been appealing to people who thought it was ruling out an alternate explanation for why journalistic standards have shifted (i.e. "maybe it's not because of different business strategies but rather because journalists have just become more partisan"), but a correct version of that answer would not assume an extreme comparison; it would rule out an alternate cause. (A) The shift in journalistic standards is not primarily due to the increasing partisanship of journalists.

    4% picked this

  2. People prefer objective reporting to

    Out of Scope: people prefer

    Nothing in this argument deals with people's preferences, so the author isn't making any assumptions on that subject. If the author believed this answer choice, then she'd think that modern journalistic strategies are ill-conceived (since they are going after reinforcing partisan leanings, rather than objectivity).

    5% picked this

  3. The newer media outlets are

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: popularity Unsupported Causal Relationship The author is only telling us that the reason newer media have a different style, in re: objectivity, from newspapers is because the new media cares less about offending potential readers and more about sticking out in a crowded marketplace. We have no information whatsoever about whether newspapers or newer media are doing good / bad / medium, in terms of popularity, nor whether either one of them are stealing market share from the other.

    8% picked this

  4. Correct

    Newspapers have regarded objective reporting

    Why this is right

    This is one of our two anticipated missing links: 1. Objectivity is supposed to help with "avoid offending potential readers" 2. Creating a stir with openly partisan reporting is supposed to help with "differentiating themselves in a crowded marketplace"

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

    79% picked this

  5. There can be no basis

    Too Strong: no basis

    This is a very severe opinion. Where was the author saying, "It's impossible to cogently argue that objectivity is an essential journalistic standard"?

    4% 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