LR Question 23 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: When investigators discovered that the director of a local charity…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Strengthen
CONCLUSION: The investigators claimed that the journalists were also to blame, along with the director.
REASONING: The director admitted they lied about the charity’s finances. Yet the journalists inflated the charity’s reputation by repeating as fact the numbers the director gave them.
ANALYSIS: We need some principle that tell us journalists must do more than simply repeat facts.
Most of the wrong answers apply to the director’s actions. We’re trying to blame the journalists.
___________
- This would apply to the director. We’re trying to blame the journalists.
- The journalists did not knowingly aid the director. They just didn’t try very hard.
- CORRECT. The journalists did present the story as factual and they didn’t try very hard to see if the story was true.
- This would apply to the director. The journalists didn’t lie.
- This also applies to the director.
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.
I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle
If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.
---------
Updates:
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
Why is answer choice C correct?? The answer choice says no less responsible “than anyone else.” How do we know “than anyone else?” Maybe only as much as the director!
So “anyone who presents as factual a story” refers to the journalists, who presented the director’s claims as factual. The stimulus said that these journalists were as guilty as the director, so that’s why the journalists are “no less responsible…than anyone else (the director)”.
I know, but I am asking why “anyone else” is necessarily referring to the director. Maybe it is refering to a potential 3rd party who would really be more responsible than the director, in which there would be no way to know from the stimulus that the journalist would be just as responsible as that 3rd party.
Yes “anyone else” could refer to third parties, as well as the director. The director also counts as “anyone” and since the stimulus only gives us two parties, the director and the journalists, we are able to align this situation with principle C. For principle questions, you don’t need to overthink the situation Ex. there’s a third party. As long as it justifies the situation in the stimulus, then it’s right.