Logical Reasoning

PT17 · S2 · Q23 Magazine editor: I know that some

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

Magazine editor: I know that some of our regular advertisers have been pressuring us to give favorable mention to their products in our articles, but they should realize that for us to yield to their wishes would actually be against their interests.

Conclusion

Our regular advertisers should realize that if we gave favorable mention to their products in our articles, it would be against their interests.

Evidence

Their interests are that we are an effective advertising vehicle, for which we need loyal readership, and we would lose the readership if our readers suspect that our editorial integrity has been compromised by pandering to advertisers.

Evaluate

It seems like this argument has one missing link. It seems to have this structure:

If we did Action A, it would undermine Goal X. Goal X requires Y, and if Z happened, it would ruin Y.

What's being assumed? If we did Action A, Z would happen.

In the language of this conversation, that would be like,

Goal

Look for an answer connecting .

Or find an answer that, when negated, would allow us to say that .

23.

The magazine editor’s argument assumes which one of the following?

A magazine editor should never
Too Strong: never
This editor is resisting being influenced in this certain case, but it's too strong to say she's assuming that in 100% of cases an editor should resist any influence.
2% picked this
The magazine cannot give any
Perception vs. Reality
This is very close to what we want. We would like an answer that said: "The magazine cannot give any favorable mention to its regular advertisers without potentially leading readers to suspect editorial integrity has been compromised". Our author doesn't need to assume that favorably mentioning the advertisers' products is actually compromising integrity; she's only worried that it will make readers suspect that it's compromising integrity.
47% picked this
Correct
Favorable mention of their products
Why this is right
This answer is somewhat surprising. Initially when I saw the conclusion, I was thinking that we would have to define, in our correct answer, what exactly is "against their interests" (the advertisers' interests). After all, getting their products favorably mentioned in articles seems very in line with their interests. But then since the premises began "to remain an effective advertising vehicle", I dropped that issue, thinking, "Well clearly the advertisers want this magazine to remain an effective advertising vehicle; otherwise they couldn't keep advertising in this magazine". This answer choice is addressing the possibility that maybe the advertisers will be fine with that. They're currently advertising in Magazine X, and it's an effective vehicle. If they pressure X to write favorably of their products in X's articles, then that will help the advertisers in the short term (more sales, potentially), but it will hurt the editorial credibility and effectiveness of X as an advertising vehicle in the long run. Still, from the advertiser's point of view that could be fine. Maybe they're okay getting the short-term sales boost from having Magazine X sell out and shill their products, and if/when that causes Magazine X to no longer be respected enough to be effective at advertising, then the advertisers will just pull their business and go find a new magazine that hasn't sold out its credibility yet. If we negate this answer, it's saying "favorable mention is of at least as much value to the advertisers as would be the continued effectiveness of the magazine as an advertising vehicle." That would badly weaken the argument, by making it seem like "yielding to their wishes would not be against their interests". Here's a sample argument by analogy: "Jimmy shouldn't push the boss to give him a promotion, because if he succeeds it will actually go against his interests. After all, people who get promoted become much less liked by their coworkers." This argument is assuming that "Jimmy's desire for the promotion is of less value to him than is the continued fondness his coworkers have for him".
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
47% picked this
Giving favorable mention to a
Irrelevant Comparison Weakens, if anything
This is something the advertisers are probably assuming (that's why they're hoping to pressure the editor into capitulating), but this has nothing to do with the editor's argument. If "favorable mention in article" is better for the advertisers than "explicit ad" would be, then this answer goes against the author's conclusion. It makes it sound like "yielding to their wishes would be going with their interests". We don't want the answer, as written, to Weaken. We want the answer, when negated, to weaken.
2% picked this
Carrying paid advertisements can never
Too Strong: never
All we know is that the author assumes that "giving favorable mention to products within articles would pose a threat to the reputation for editorial integrity". That doesn't allow us to assume that "something besides that would not pose a threat to the reputation for editorial integrity". I'm sure the editor can think of a scenario in which carrying paid ads still tarnishes their reputation (maybe 90% of the magazine becomes ads / the magazine agrees to shows ads for companies or politicians thought to be shameful)
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