Flawed ReasoningDiff: Hardest
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: A press agent didn't give every reporter all the details about an accident. Because the agent held back some information, the author assumes that some lucky reporter must now be able to scoop all the others.
Conclusion: At least one reporter is in a position to get an exclusive scoop on the accident story.
Reasoning: If the press agent had told every reporter everything, no one could have a scoop; however, the agent did not share everything with everyone.
Analysis: The argument suffers from a classic formal logic error known as 'negating the antecedent.' It sets up a conditional: if everyone knows everything, then no one can scoop. It then observes that the first part didn't happen (not everyone knows everything) and concludes the second part must also be false (someone can scoop). This ignores the possibility that the agent gave everyone the exact same small amount of information, leaving them all equally scoop-less and miserable. Look for an answer that highlights how the reporters could still possess identical information even if that information is incomplete.
Conclusion: At least one reporter is in a position to get an exclusive scoop on the accident story.
Reasoning: If the press agent had told every reporter everything, no one could have a scoop; however, the agent did not share everything with everyone.
Analysis: The argument suffers from a classic formal logic error known as 'negating the antecedent.' It sets up a conditional: if everyone knows everything, then no one can scoop. It then observes that the first part didn't happen (not everyone knows everything) and concludes the second part must also be false (someone can scoop). This ignores the possibility that the agent gave everyone the exact same small amount of information, leaving them all equally scoop-less and miserable. Look for an answer that highlights how the reporters could still possess identical information even if that information is incomplete.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage25.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?
Correct Answer
E
E points out that it’s possible no reporter knows any more than any other reporter. That is fully consistent with the facts: the press agent did not tell every reporter everything, yet could have told each the same incomplete subset. If E holds, then by the second conditional, no reporter can scoop all others—directly showing the author’s inference to “some reporter can scoop all the others” is invalid.
Upgrade Your Prep
Ready to go beyond free explanations?
LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.
Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal