LR Question 23 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Magazine editor: I know that some of our regular…
QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: The editor concludes that the magazine will be less effective for advertisers if the articles start to mention the advertisers’ products.
REASONING: Readership would decline if readers began to suspect that editorial integrity had been compromised by pandering to advertisers.
ANALYSIS: The editor is assuming that readers actually will suspect that editorial integrity has been compromised.
___________
- The editor’s argument still works even if an editor has to occasionally be influenced in their duties by advertisers (e.g. Send them Christmas cards.)
- This is very tempting. But would the editor’s argument be wrecked if it were possible to mention a product once (but not twice) without compromising reputation?
It’s only necessary that the magazine couldn’t make a policy of repeatedly mentioning advertisers without compromising its reputation. - CORRECT. Yes. The editor is arguing that mentioning the advertisers would actually be bad for the advertisers.
However it could be that the favorable mentions would be so valuable to advertisers that they outweigh the disadvantages of losing the magazine as an advertising vessel. Then the editor’s conclusion would be wrong. So this is necessary. - Actually the editor’s argument is better if mentioning advertisers in articles doesn’t help advertisers very much.
- Even if carrying paid advertisement could sometimes pose a threat the editor still has a point. They have a loyal readership even though they take paid advertisements.
Recap: The question begins with “Magazine editor: I know that some of our regular”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. Learn how to master LSAT Necessary questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.
This is one of the few questions on where more people picked a single wrong answer (B at 52%) then the accredited one (C at 40%). The median score of a tester who coinflips this in a timed condition is 173. Pretty rough one.
I got to C by saying that it seems it has to be right, and that B lacks the mention of ‘products’. This seemed to be the bigger disqualifying factor for B rather than the extremeness that you pointed out (where maybe doing it once would be fine versus doing it any number of times more than once).
To me the editor’s argument is that if you positively mention products in articles that will cause loss of editorial integrity in eyes of readers. But maybe you can talk positively about them without mentioning product, and this isn’t going to lose integrity in eyes of readers. The word “pandering” at the end feels a little softening for this explanation, but I still like it better than the extremity one which feels really forced. I wonder what your thoughts are.
On the “products” point: the editor’s argument is responding to a specific advertiser request. They want favorable mention of their products in the articles. The editor’s claim is: giving in to that request would look like pandering and would undermine readers’ trust.
Because of that, the argument doesn’t hinge on drawing fine distinctions like “mentioning the company but not the product.” The whole dispute is strictly about whether doing what advertisers want (i.e., favorable product mention) would harm integrity. So the presence or absence of the word “products” in B doesn’t change how necessary B is. It’s the scope of B, not its wording, that makes it wrong. It’s also reasonable to infer that “favorable mention in its articles to its regular advertisers” would include their products. After all, if you say Apple is awesome, you’re referring to some extent to one of their products, even if you’re not saying the iPhone 17 is awesome.
The “extremity” argument is actually the important reason B is incorrect (and overstatements like these are a common reason for wrong NA answers). B says the magazine can’t give ANY favorable mention without compromising integrity. That’s far stronger than what the editor needs. The argument only requires the softer idea that pandering as a policy (i.e., routinely giving favorable mentions because advertisers want them) would eventually undermine credibility. The argument works perfectly even if a single, isolated mention wouldn’t hurt integrity at all. That’s why B is too extreme to be necessary.
Whereas C is correct because the editor’s reasoning hinges on the comparative value to advertisers: favorable mentions vs. the magazine’s continued effectiveness.
Hope that helps clarify, but happy to talk through it more!