LSAT Explanation PT 27, S4, Q25: All any reporter knows about the

LSAT Question Stem

The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument fails to recognize that which one of the following is consistent with the facts the argument presents? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

In this LSAT problem, we are presented with an argument that revolves around a press agent providing information about an accident to reporters. Let's analyze the argument and label its parts:

1. All any reporter knows about the accident is what the press agent has said. (Premise)

2. If the press agent told every reporter everything about the accident, then no reporter knows any more about it than any other reporter. (Premise)

3. If no reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter, then no reporter can scoop all of the other reporters. (Premise)

4. The press agent did not tell every reporter everything about the accident. (Premise)

5. It follows that some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters. (Conclusion)

This is a Flaw question type, asking us to identify the flaw in the argument's reasoning. The Evaluate question for this argument would be: "Is it possible that no reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter even if the press agent did not tell every reporter everything about the accident?"

Now let's discuss each answer choice:

a) The press agent did not tell everything about the accident to any reporter.

- This answer choice restates the fourth premise, but it doesn't address the flaw in the argument's reasoning. It doesn't help us determine whether some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters.

b) Even if some reporter knows more about the accident than all of the other reporters, that reporter need not scoop any other reporter.

- This answer choice is tempting, but it doesn't directly address the flaw in the argument. The issue is whether it's possible for no reporter to know more about the accident than any other reporter, not whether a reporter who knows more will necessarily scoop others.

c) Some reporter may have been told something about the accident that the reporter tells all of the other reporters.

- This answer choice introduces a new possibility but doesn't address the flaw in the argument's reasoning. It doesn't help us determine whether it's possible for no reporter to know more about the accident than any other reporter.

d) The press agent may not know any more about the accident than the most knowledgeable reporter.

- This answer choice is outside the scope of the argument. The argument is concerned with whether a reporter can scoop all of the other reporters, not the knowledge of the press agent.

e) No reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter.

- This is the correct answer. It addresses the flaw in the argument by identifying a possibility that is consistent with the facts presented in the argument. If no reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter, then the conclusion that some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters is invalid.

In conclusion, the correct answer is E because it directly addresses the flaw in the argument's reasoning and highlights a possibility that is consistent with the facts presented in the argument.