Logical Reasoning

PT153 · S2 · Q23 Critic: Journalists should have reasonable knowledge

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

Critic: Journalists should have reasonable knowledge of statistics.

Conclusion

Journalists should have X's should have Y. reasonable knowledge of stats.

Evidence

Otherwise, they can make If X's don't have Y, errors that misinform. something bad.

For example, bad stat Example: X didn't knowledge led to a have Y, led to journalists misinforming something bad. about an election.

Evaluate

The argument seems to just be It feels weird to include the example in our reasoning template because examples are often extraneous to the reasoning, but the example certainly seems to embody the principle and potential harm the other two claims discuss.

Goal

Conclusion: X's should be Y. Premise: If not Y, something bad. (Premise 2: example of that)?

23.

The pattern of reasoning in the critic's argument is most similar to that in which one of the following arguments?

  1. Before being issued a driver?s

    Missing 2nd Premise

    I would keep this on a first pass, because it has a Conclusion saying "X's should be Y" and a Premise saying "if they're not, something bad". But it loses out to the correct answer, because the latter also has an example like in the original argument, whereas this argument doesn't have an example.

    5% picked this

  2. Correct

    All elementary schools should have

    Why this is right

    This matches all three ingredients. Elem schools should have X should be Y. recess. Otherwise, kids incur if not Y, bad. health risks. A case in point is .... Example: ~Y, bad

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

    76% picked this

  3. International travelers should have to

    Missing 2nd Premise

    Just like (A), this has the "X should be Y" and the "otherwise, something bad" parts. But neither of them had the example, like (B) and the original did. Also, this one has a ruled out competing interest, which the original did not have.

    4% picked this

  4. All public officials should study

    Bad Premise Match

    This is missing both premises. There's no premise saying "If they don't study ethics prior, something bad happens", and there's no example of that playing itself out.

    8% picked this

  5. Toy manufacturers should be required

    Missing 2nd Premise

    Just like (A) and (C) this has the conclusion "X should be Y" and the 1st premise "Otherwise, something bad", but it lacks the example that the original and (B) have.

    8% 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