Q17 - Teacher: Journalists who conceal

[noah]

The teacher's conclusion is that if a journalist will not reveal her source, she's depending on the "logic of anecdotes." Why? Because if the quote is not sourced, then the quote must be judged by whether it's believable and interesting, in other words, a good story/anecdote.

The student argues that were the teacher correct, we could infer that journalists shouldn't worry about sources, because anyone can make up a good story.

For 17, we're asked to find a flaw in the student's argument. One problem, as (B) notes, is that perhaps the teacher thinks that journalists cannot lie - that they must have an actual source (other than their imagination!).

(A) is wrong because there's no discussion of whether the practice is widespread.
(C) is tempting - however the student does not conflate the what the quality of what the quote says and where it's from - he's suggesting a possible outcome of the teacher's idea.
(D) is wrong since the teacher does not mention an extreme case
(E) is very tempting! The teacher indeed notes three criteria for forming a good anecdote, but the issue of whether just one of them is enough to guarantee a good anecdote is irrelevant. The Student doesn't say that journalists can't make up anecdotes that satisfy all three criteria. On the LSAT, "or" doesn't mean "one or the other but not both." The LSAT will say "but not both" if that's what's intended.

[kylelitfin]

The teacher's conclusion is that if a journalist will not reveal her source, she's depending on the "logic of anecdotes." Why? Because if the quote is not sourced, then the quote must be judged by whether it's believable and interesting, in other words, a good story/anecdote.

The student argues that were the teacher correct, we could infer that journalists shouldn't worry about sources, because anyone can make up a good story.

For 17, we're asked to find a flaw in the student's argument. One problem, as (B) notes, is that perhaps the teacher thinks that journalists cannot lie - that they must have an actual source (other than their imagination!).

(A) is wrong because there's no discussion of whether the practice is widespread.
(C) is tempting - however the student does not conflate the what the quality of what the quote says and where it's from - he's suggesting a possible outcome of the teacher's idea.
(D) is wrong since the teacher does not mention an extreme case
(E) is off since there aren't 3 criteria!

I'm really confused by 17, particularly answer choice (E).

You said there aren't 3 criteria, but wouldn't that be the (1) high in plausibility or (2) originality or (3) interest to a given audience?

What am I missing here?

[noah]

I'm really confused by 17, particularly answer choice (E).

You said there aren't 3 criteria, but wouldn't that be the (1) high in plausibility or (2) originality or (3) interest to a given audience?

What am I missing here?

Great catch! I went up and fixed up my explanation. That clear it up?

[soyeonjeon]

I'm lost here and I don't quite understand what the answer choice B means. I'm not getting its meaning.

I picked D as an answer and then E. I still don't understand why the answer is B or what it means.

And I don't think that B is central to the discussion of the two. I think the main flaw has to be with the fact that the student did not consider the "staking their professional reputations" part, which is also the claim of the Teacher. the "accepted only if ..." part, while it does have a conditional, thus a possibility to be used as an answer choice, is just a premise, thus not the point at issue between the two, no? Or should I sometimes expect problems from the premises that are not central as well?
anyhow, why is the staking the reputations part not the main concern to be addressed in the answer choice as the reasoning flaw that the student is making?

Thanks.

[noah]

I'm lost here and I don't quite understand what the answer choice B means. I'm not getting its meaning.

I picked D as an answer and then E. I still don't understand why the answer is B or what it means.

And I don't think that B is central to the discussion of the two. I think the main flaw has to be with the fact that the student did not consider the "staking their professional reputations" part, which is also the claim of the Teacher. the "accepted only if ..." part, while it does have a conditional, thus a possibility to be used as an answer choice, is just a premise, thus not the point at issue between the two, no? Or should I sometimes expect problems from the premises that are not central as well?
anyhow, why is the staking the reputations part not the main concern to be addressed in the answer choice as the reasoning flaw that the student is making?

Thanks.

I think you may think this question is asking you to identify the point of disagreement, as you keep referring to whether something is discussed by both the teacher and student. Plus, I'm not sure what you're identifying as central. I disagree that the professional reputations idea is central--and, more importantly, I'm not concerned with what's central. My job here is find a flaw in the student's reasoning.

In short, the student makes a big assumption that journalists can just make up stuff. Why? Because it'll be plausible, original, etc. But, just because those made-up stories can be high quality doesn't mean journalists will do it. That's what (B) is talking about -- maybe journalists believe a statement has to have actually been made in order to publish it.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

[WaltGrace1983]

I found this one really tough and got turned around. I don't think I could have ever gotten this right if I had it on the test so let me see if I can dissect it.

Teacher:
Statements will be published only if they are plausible, original, or interesting - in other words, an anecdote.
→
Journalists rely on logic of anecdotes

Student:
Journalist can invent plausible, original, or interesting stores faster than they can obtain them
→
Journalists need not bother with sources in the first place

There are a few things to note here:
(1) There is plenty of conditional language. In the teacher's argument, we have the conditional cue "only if" which is very important because we can compare it to the implied "if" in the student's argument. I'll explain what I mean.

"Statements will be published only if they are plausible, original, or interesting"

Published → Plausible or Original or Interesting

======

Journalist can invent plausible, original, or interesting stores faster than they can obtain them. [Therefore] Journalists need not bother with sources in the first place.

We might say that not having to "bother" with sources means that these statements will be published. In other words...

Plausible or Original or Interesting → Published

Now the argument is not going to focus on this issue primarily because the conditional language of the teacher outlined above is only in regards to the premise whereas the conditional language of the student outlined above is in regards to the whole argument. Either way, I think this is something to notice but not the end of the world if you didn't.

(2) The flaw is dealing only with the student's response. Read the teacher's response but realize that the gap is primarily going to be within the meat of the second argument, i.e. the student's response.

(3) Analyze the gap. The gap is there but it is not easily seen because of the multitude of distractions going on in this stimulus. However, the gap is between the idea of inventing stories and needing not to bother with sources. I have noticed that it helps when analyzing assumption family Q's to read the stimulus like an argument. In other words, stress words in your head. Don't merely say "X says not to bother" but think "Whoa! X is saying that we shouldn't even have concern with these sources! These sources are meaningless X is saying!" I think a reason why I got this question wrong is because I failed to understand the significance of need not bother. It is that important.

So why shouldn't we bother? Well the student says we shouldn't bother because the reporters can just invent these stories. However, what if we need sources? The student is assuming that we don't need any sources and this is the flaw. Granted, it is still not a great flaw that is easy to spot.

This is why (B) is correct. Let's break it down. (B) is saying that the student ignores that the statement must have "actually been made" - a statement necessarily has to have a source!

[WaltGrace1983]

Can someone further explain the wrong answers? In addition, why is (B) talking about the relationship between the student's statements and the teacher's statements? Shouldn't the flaw be only focused on the student?

[tommywallach]

Hey Walt,

Noah explained all the answers. Are there explanations there that you think are incorrect?

-t

[coco.wu1993]

I did this one right through POE, but it is a weird question for me. The teacher doesn't state explicitly that an actual statement is a prerequisite. The student exposes this assumption and attacks the teacher's argument. How can exposing an unstated assumption be considered as a flaw?

[ohthatpatrick]

I saw the student's response as committing the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient Flaw (which just means that a conditional rule was given, but then the author, or in this case the Student, messes it up ... they either do an illegal reversal or an illegal negation).

Nec vs. Suff flaws can only occur if a conditional rule was given. And when a conditional rule is given, it's very, very common that LSAT is testing whether anyone abuses the logic of the rule.

So it's very important that when we read Flaw, we NOTICE if there's conditional language.

(Did you notice that in the last three sentences, there were conditional triggers? "only if" ... "when" ... "if")

Here, the Teacher gives us an "only if" statement. ("only if" always indicates a necessary condition, so whatever idea comes after the 'only if' must be the idea to the right of the arrow)

Accepted for Pub --> High in [Plaus or Orig or Interest]

How does the Student reason? She reasons backwards.

She thinks that AS LONG AS something is plausible, original, or interesting, it can be published.

So she's acting like the rule was

High in [Plaus or Orig or Interest] --> Accepted for Pub

Figuring out that someone committed a Nec/Suff error isn't the end of the game. You have to be flexible and receptive to different ways they can describe that error.

Let's use a more conversational version:
You can be a lawyer only if you take the LSAT
(Lawyer --> take LSAT)

If someone were to say, "Well why bother going to law school? You can just take the LSAT and be a laywer!"

This person would be thinking
(take LSAT --> lawyer)

we could describe their flaw a bunch of different ways:
1. takes for granted that having taken the LSAT is enough to allow someone to be a lawyer
2. confuses a condition required for a certain outcome with one sufficient to produce that outcome
3. fails to consider that some people who take the LSAT are not lawyers
4. ignores the possibility that other things may be required to be a lawyer

This is not an exhaustive list, just a sense of the variety possible.

You can
1. just describe the illegal Prem to Conc move
2. describe the illegal reversal / negation of conditional logic
3. point out that the first idea does NOT imply the second by means of counterexample
4. show someone that meeting one REQUIREMENT is not necessarily SUFFICIENT; there could be other REQUIREMENTS.

So (B) is just discussing the Nec/Suff flaw by means of #4. The teacher said that Plausibility/Originality/Interest is one requirement of getting published. The student acts as though the teacher said that P/O/I is SUFFICIENT to be published. So this answer choice is just describing the NEC vs. SUFF by saying, "Whoa buddy. You don't know that P/O/I is Sufficient. Maybe there are OTHER requirements as well."

I think you were thrown off by the "mindreading" sound of "what the teacher may or may not regard as an additional prerequisite".

The easier way to deal with this, especially if you didn't spot the original flaw is always to just deal with
"ignores the possibility"
"fails to consider"
"neglects the possibility"
as Weaken answers.

Whenever you see them, just ask yourself, "if it's true that the teacher regards another prerequisite as the statement having been actually made, would that Weaken the Student's argument?"

Sure!

Hope this helps.

[ILikeKneadedErasers]

Can someone please explain why C is wrong in more detail?

Also, can E also be considered wrong because the teacher never actually ASSURES anything for a plausible, original, interesting statement? The only if makes it a necessary and so there isn't any sort of a guarantee going on right? That was my initial thought process for eliminating E and I want to make sure that it's right.

[eve.lederman]

Can someone please explain why C is wrong in more detail?

Also, can E also be considered wrong because the teacher never actually ASSURES anything for a plausible, original, interesting statement? The only if makes it a necessary and so there isn't any sort of a guarantee going on right? That was my initial thought process for eliminating E and I want to make sure that it's right.

C is wrong because the student isn't getting the characteristics of the reported statements confused. the student is getting the INTENT of the report statements confused. So, just to reiterate: the teacher says that to be published, the statements have to be P, O, or I. The student responds that any statement that is P, O, or I, can be published. So if you diagram both, you'll see that the student reverses the teacher. B is similar to C but C is wrong because it talks about characteristics, while B talks about intentions (or requirements) of publication. Does that make sense?

[mwalton444]

I'm confused by what is meant by "the journalist need not bother with sources"

I feel like this can mean two different things: 1) Don't do the sources at all, or 2) Just don't be finicky (or a perfectionist, or overly detailed, or hassle) with the sources. In other words, don't stress if the sources are not that great. (I feel like this meaning relates better with the passage considering that the identity of the sources is concealed. EX. who cares if its the best source or if the source is slightly off, just use it... We do not have time to mess around with details)

I feel like this question would have been so much better if the wording that the student used was better.

"The journalist need not bother with sources in the first place"
vs.
The journalist does not need sources in the first place."