Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S2 · Q20 The public's welfare can be

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

The public’s welfare can be undermined by its own tastes.

Conclusion

The public's welfare can be undermined by its own tastes.

Evidence (for example ...)

Journalists, because they want to focus on stories that stimulate readers, are increasingly doing gossipy stuff rather than hard news.

Evaluate

Whenever we do Main Conclusion questions, we prime our brain to read the paragraph in that special way you read Main Conclusion and Role paragraphs -- the conclusion will probably be earlier than the support

Normally, in Logical Reasoning, the Conclusion is more likely to come at the end of the paragraph. But that tendency big time flips on Main Conclusion and Role. So you start listening as early as the very first sentence.

You have to ask yourself actively as you read each claim,

On this question, the first sentence doesn't quite sound like an opinion, but it does sound like an abstract claim, rather than a specific fact. Does the next sentence sound like it's supporting this initial claim?

Honestly, no. But if we force ourselves to look closer, there is an overlapping element. They're both talking about "the public's tastes" / "the readers' interest".

The first sentence was positing a causal connection: public's tastes --> undermines public welfare

This second sentence is talking about the public's taste, when it comes to news stories. Does it say that our taste in news stories leads to "undermining public welfare"?

Yes, aloofly. It goes on to complain that serious news stories have been displaced by TMZ and InfoWars type stories (the author is assuming that this switch in emphasis is something that undermines public welfare, but we don't need to worry about assumptions on Main Conclusion).

Incidentally the "Because" being used in the final sentence should probably be interpreted as a causal usage of Because (as in, "Because I fell down, my knee is bleeding"), not a reasoning usage of Because, as a support indicator.

Goal

Our only job is to find the Conclusion. We did. This paragraph made it particularly hard to do so. It's the first sentence. It sure makes life easier if we know the trick for Main Conclusion questions that the conclusion is earlier than the support, the vast majority of the time.

Let's find an answer that mimics the meaning of the first sentence.

20.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument above?

  1. Correct

    The best interests of the

    Why this is right

    This is one of those correct answers you'd like to punch. We were looking for a meaning-match for the first sentence, and this does indeed match the meaning. 1st sentence (A) The public's welfare The best interests of the public can be sometimes fail undermined to be served by its own because of the sorts of tastes preferences ppl have This answer's use of the thesaurus is a real [chef's kiss] spice of obnoxious. Luckily, on Main Conclusion, we always know specifically what claim we're looking for, so if they try to disguise that claim with synonyms we can force ourselves to see through it.

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

    72% picked this

  2. Journalists’ tendency to focus on

    Not the First Sentence Assumption

    This does not match the first sentence, since it's talking about journalists, who do not appear in the first sentence. So we can eliminate. For what it's worth, this answer is just presenting an Assumption of the argument, because they know that people will feel its correctness and pick it (after all, it is a correct answer, for a different question type).

    12% picked this

  3. Newspaper articles that focus on

    Trap

    Not the First Sentence Premise, Last Claim Trap This does not match the first sentence, since it's talking about newspapers, which do not appear in the first sentence. That's as deep as we need to go. For what it's worth, this answer is presenting a Premise of the argument, or we could potentially say an Intermediate Conclusion. We know why rumor stories displace serious politics: the public's tastes. So this last claim does feel "supported". But this whole journalism discussion is one big example, which the author is using to support the generalization she made in the first sentence about the public's tastes ending up hurting itself. Beware picking the last claim as your main conclusion on Main Conclusion. It's usually never there, unless you're doing a very early section easier problem.

    8% picked this

  4. The shortcomings of modern print-journalism

    Not the First Sentence Not Stated

    This does not match the first sentence, since it's talking about modern print-journalism, which does not appear in the first sentence. That's as deep as we need to go. For what it's worth, this answer is also saying something stronger than anything even said in the paragraph. The author has cited one way in which the public's preferences result in something undesirable. But the author hasn't placed sweeping blame like, "All the shortcoming of modern journalism are the fault of readers' preferences"

    7% picked this

  5. Journalists should pay more attention

    Not the First Sentence Not Stated

    This does not match the first sentence, since it's talking about journalists, who aren't mentioned in the first sentence. That's enough to eliminate it. But this answer is also saying something never expressed in the paragraph. We might speculate that, "If this guy is whining about journalists covering gossip instead of hard news, he would probably say they should pay more attention to what good for people than what people like." That is far, far from our job on Main Conclusion. We're not speculating other opinions. We're just finding one opinion in the paragraph and picking the answer that matches that opinion.

    1% 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