KelseyWoods wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:59 pm
Hi menkenj & daydreamingsamosa!
menkenj: Answer choice (B) is incorrect because the author does not overlook the possibility that two newspapers could provide the same incomplete coverage of the same important stories. The author says that everyone should have access to "more than one" newspaper but nowhere does the author say that if you have access to two newspapers you'll get complete coverage. Basically the author is saying that more than one newspaper is necessary to get complete coverage but does not say that more than one newspaper is sufficient to get complete coverage and also doesn't say that specifically two newspapers would provide complete coverage.
daydreamingsamosa: The wording here is definitely a little bit tricky! But the phrase "inability to cover all sides of any important story" does not necessarily mean that no important story will get coverage of all sides. On the LSAT, any and every are often used somewhat interchangeably--grammatically speaking, there are slight differences between these terms and they can be used differently in different contexts. But, for example, "any" and "every" are both sufficient indicator terms. So you could interpret it as "inability to cover all sides of every important story"--meaning that there will at least be some important stories that do not get coverage of all sides. You could also interpret "any" to mean "one or more." In that case it would read "inability to cover all sides of one or more important stories." This, again, would mean that there will at least be some important stories that do not get coverage of all sides but does not necessarily mean that no important story will get full coverage.
Hope this helps!
Thanks for your response. I keep coming back to this question to make sure I understand it. I think I'm nearly there.
The argument seems to center around the hypothetical of what would happen if there were only one newspaper. So then (b) is wrong because gaining an incomplete picture of important stories with two newspapers is irrelevant.
The flaw is that the author shifts between important stories and all stories in the premise immediately preceding the conclusion. Presumably no newspaper could adequately cover all sides of every one of its stories and still adequately cover every one of its important stories. Because the author addresses every story instead of every important
story in this premise, the conclusion does not follow so there lies the flaw.
Is this an accurate evaluation?